If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNSNews)   From the Department of Money Well Spent: After almost 50 years and untold trillions of dollars, the US poverty level is the same as it was when war was declared   (cnsnews.com) divider line 413
    More: Obvious, poverty line, President Johnson, Earned Income Tax Credit  
•       •       •

1405 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2012 at 12:22 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



413 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-06-26 11:08:30 AM
Clearly we need more tax cuts for the rich.
 
2012-06-26 11:11:43 AM

Dusk-You-n-Me: Clearly we need more tax cuts for the rich.


No no no... we need to invade Iran.
 
2012-06-26 11:12:07 AM
FTA: Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffected

Welfare is supposed to eliminate poverty? I thought it was mainly used to prevent people from starving to death.
 
2012-06-26 11:19:55 AM

Cythraul: Welfare is supposed to eliminate poverty? I thought it was mainly used to prevent people from starving to death.


One of the stated objectives of The Great Society was the elimination of poverty.
 
2012-06-26 11:22:48 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Welfare is supposed to eliminate poverty? I thought it was mainly used to prevent people from starving to death.

One of the stated objectives of The Great Society was the elimination of poverty.


So, let's eliminate welfare? Sounds good to me.
 
2012-06-26 11:23:27 AM
The War on Poverty is to Afganistan as the War on Drugs is to Iraq.
 
2012-06-26 11:23:32 AM
The federal government is not making much headway reducing poverty despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars, according to a study by the libertarian Cato Institute.

Libertarians give a sh*t about poverty? News to me.


Amazing how the geniuses at the Cato Institute don't seem to mention that with the increases in welfare spending, the actual poverty rate hasn't increased much, despite at least three recessions and one total meltdown of the US economy happening since 1965.

It's almost as if the extra money was helpful in not seeing poverty rates increase further.

Nah, that's crazy talk.
 
2012-06-26 11:31:14 AM

Cythraul: So, let's eliminate welfare? Sounds good to me.


Staying the course for another 50 years should do the trick!
 
2012-06-26 11:32:18 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: So, let's eliminate welfare? Sounds good to me.

Staying the course for another 50 years should do the trick!


Yep. An eliminating the safety net for the poorest of the poor never starts bloody revolutions, either.
 
2012-06-26 11:36:59 AM
I don't care, I support welfare for farmers. I mean subsidies for agriculture.
 
2012-06-26 11:37:04 AM

Cythraul: Yep. An eliminating the safety net for the poorest of the poor never starts bloody revolutions, either.


I thought the goal was to eliminate poverty altogether.
 
2012-06-26 11:39:17 AM

Aarontology: I don't care, I support welfare for farmers. I mean subsidies for agriculture.


Nah. In fact how about we trash the entire Farm Bill currently working it's way through congress?
 
2012-06-26 11:40:05 AM
Can't we just give them cake?
 
2012-06-26 11:43:16 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Yep. An eliminating the safety net for the poorest of the poor never starts bloody revolutions, either.

I thought the goal was to eliminate poverty altogether.


I never said that. One could argue it is an effort to reduce poverty. Or to reduce the impact of being poor has on one's life. But to eliminate poverty all together seems like an unrealistic goal.

But if it's 'not working,' by all means, get rid of the program. As a liberal, I want to see welfare eliminated. Get rid of all of the 'entitlements.' Everything from Medicare, to Pell Grants to Food Stamps. I seriously would like to sit back and laugh when the shiat hits the fan after.
 
2012-06-26 11:44:44 AM
A study by the Cato Institute interpreted on CNS News as demonstrating that poverty is too comfortable. That's one of the funniest things I've read today.

Make sure you donate some cash to CNS News, though. They're not funded by the government like NPR and PBS and need your help.
 
2012-06-26 11:44:55 AM
As with all economic discussions in America we have the people who want to help arguing about how and a vocal section of the populace determined that we shouldn't/can't help at all. And then every couple of years the people in charge change and the method shifts along with them.
 
2012-06-26 11:45:46 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Aarontology: I don't care, I support welfare for farmers. I mean subsidies for agriculture.

Nah. In fact how about we trash the entire Farm Bill currently working it's way through congress?


Not gonna happen. Neither party ever really opposes a Farm Bill.

The food those food stamps will pay for have to come from somewhere. So not only do the welfare farmers aren't liable for losses thanks to the insurance subsidy, they get guaranteed income due to suppliers purchasing food to resell to the people on food stamps.

Of course, there will be the ignorant teabaggers who scream bloody murder about lazy people on food stamps while wining about how farms don't enough help without realizing that people who buy food have to, you know, have someone to grow it in the first place.

Besides, food security is national security.
 
2012-06-26 11:47:28 AM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Clearly we need more tax cuts for the rich.

No no no... we need to invade Iran.


wait, if we arm the poor and have THEM invade Iran, we can take care of two problems at once!
 
2012-06-26 11:47:40 AM
But the really ironic thing, and the funniest in my opinion, is that the teabaggers and republicans are complaining that there isn't enough socialism and redistribution of wealth in the Farm Bill in regards to "help" for farmers.
 
2012-06-26 11:49:52 AM
"Untold trillions"?

Someone's come unglued from reality.
 
2012-06-26 11:59:20 AM

ToxicMunkee: Can't we just give them cake?


Good idea. Cake or Death.
 
2012-06-26 12:02:19 PM

Cythraul: Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: So, let's eliminate welfare? Sounds good to me.

Staying the course for another 50 years should do the trick!

Yep. An eliminating the safety net for the poorest of the poor never starts bloody revolutions, either.


Well, that's the real purpose. Like anything else, the purpose of social programs is social stability and protecting the moneyed classes from the wrath of the poor.

Keep them poor.... but with just enough material comfort to keep them from rising up.

But hey, if we collectively decide to get rid of that safety net that's fine with me. Let it all burn. Maybe we'll learn something we forgot about the importance of the social contract.
 
2012-06-26 12:03:56 PM
Right, because logically, the amount of money people are given on welfare is enough to jump start their money piles. Because welfare is obviously designed to be invested in government bonds and was never designed to pay for rent and food.
 
2012-06-26 12:04:34 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com

The percentage of "poor" people today who own a clothes dryer is HIGHER than the percentage of ALL people who had a clothes dryer in 1971!

Your argument is invalid.
 
2012-06-26 12:08:51 PM
So make the poor f*ckers pee in a cup and demonstrate one of the other social wars we have lost miserably?
 
2012-06-26 12:11:28 PM
corporate welfare is awesome. personal welfare is bad. this is what republicans truly believe.
 
2012-06-26 12:12:38 PM

vernonFL: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 612x392]

The percentage of "poor" people today who own a clothes dryer is HIGHER than the percentage of ALL people who had a clothes dryer in 1971!

Your argument is invalid.


Hehe, the 1% in 1971 were those who owned microwaves.
 
2012-06-26 12:12:58 PM

Cythraul: I never said that.


Yeah, ok.

Cythraul: So, let's eliminate welfare? Sounds good to me



Cythraul: One could argue it is an effort to reduce poverty.


Or that one of the actual stated goals of the Great Society was the elimination of poverty.

Aarontology: Neither party ever really opposes a Farm Bill.


Sadly.

Aarontology: The food those food stamps will pay for have to come from somewhere.


So why not a "Food Stamp Bill"? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and all...

Aarontology: So not only do the welfare farmers aren't liable for losses thanks to the insurance subsidy


A Mongolian clusterfark no matter how you slices it. Just goes to show that dependency knows no boundaries.

gilgigamesh: Keep them poor.... but with just enough material comfort to keep them from rising up.


Or wanting out?
 
2012-06-26 12:19:17 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: So why not a "Food Stamp Bill"? If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and all...


Congress likes giving... unique names to bills.

Dancin_In_Anson: A Mongolian clusterfark no matter how you slices it. Just goes to show that dependency knows no boundaries.


That's less dependency and more "if there's a catastrophe of some sort, the American agricultural industry won't completely die' as well as "keeping food prices at a certain level so they aren't nearly as affected by swings in commodities prices as we see in other countries, as well as making sure our farmers are competitive against foreign farmers who receive massive subsidies from their governments"

I know it sounds great to be all bootstrappy, but the agricultural industry is far too important to be completely left up to the whims of the market. There are reasons America doesn't have food riots, and why it's better to have a domestic farming industry instead of being completely dependent upon foreign imports for our food and the national security risks inherent in such a system. Which is exactly what would happen with the elimination of farming subsidies of all sorts.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-26 12:22:19 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Welfare is supposed to eliminate poverty? I thought it was mainly used to prevent people from starving to death.

One of the stated objectives of The Great Society was the elimination of poverty.


Yes, and every administration and Congress since Johnson has been totally dedicated to that goal.
 
2012-06-26 12:24:43 PM
Capitalism demands an underclass.
 
2012-06-26 12:25:00 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Welfare is supposed to eliminate poverty? I thought it was mainly used to prevent people from starving to death.

One of the stated objectives of The Great Society was the elimination of poverty.


Your problem's the wording. Conservatives read this and have thought since they meant the elimination of poor people.
 
2012-06-26 12:25:29 PM
I'm mildly curious what the poverty rate would be without all of the social programs.

I think it's stemming the tide rather than making gains given the relative success of the GOP to cater to the wealthy and implement ridiculously dysfunctional economic models and constant revenue slashing.
 
2012-06-26 12:26:10 PM
I'm glad DIA got the stupid going early for this thread. Let's watch the constant changes in topic, refusal to answer any tough question, and demands to cite every little thing while he refuses to cite anything himself.
 
2012-06-26 12:26:27 PM

FlashHarry: corporate welfare is awesome. personal welfare is bad. this is what republicans truly believe.


And its been thus since at least the days of Herbert Hoover, who steadfastly
refused to give individual relief to those displaced in the early days of The
Great Depression.
 
2012-06-26 12:26:56 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Clearly we need more tax cuts for the rich.

No no no... we need to invade Iran.


Why not both?
 
2012-06-26 12:27:04 PM
We misunderstood the assignment and waged war on impoverished nations instead. Our bad.
 
2012-06-26 12:27:46 PM

vernonFL: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 612x392]

The percentage of "poor" people today who own a clothes dryer is HIGHER than the percentage of ALL people who had a clothes dryer in 1971!

Your argument is invalid.


ok then, we've eliminated poverty. Time to shut down the programs.
 
2012-06-26 12:28:08 PM

Aar1012: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Clearly we need more tax cuts for the rich.

No no no... we need to invade Iran.

Why not both?


Now there's something everyone can enjoy.
 
2012-06-26 12:28:14 PM
So let's see.....

Unemployment 1965 - ranged between 4.0% and 5.1%

Current unemployment rate - 8.2%

So the poverty rate now is roughly the same as it was in 1965, when economic conditions were significantly better.

This is a failure in what way?
 
2012-06-26 12:29:03 PM

vernonFL: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 612x392]

The percentage of "poor" people today who own a clothes dryer is HIGHER than the percentage of ALL people who had a clothes dryer in 1971!

Your argument is invalid.


I seriously doubt the numbers on this chart. I really doubt 98.5 percent of poor people own refrigerators. They probably have one in their apartment that is provided by the landlord but they certainly do not "own" one.

I'm definitely not poor but I have never in my life owned a microwave oven. Every place I have ever rented had one but I didn't own it.

\I will soon be purchasing the first microwave in my 32 years of life.
\\New homeowner
 
2012-06-26 12:30:18 PM

Nuclear Monk: We misunderstood the assignment and waged war on impoverished nations instead. Our bad.


Oh OUR poverty. Haha... my bad.
 
2012-06-26 12:30:20 PM
It's hard to eliminate poverty when every single policy enacted over forty years has increased it.

Let's start with enacting a maximum wage, followed by a meaningful minimum wage. Let's move on to destroying the profit motive in food production, then health care, then real estate.

And if the rich don't like it, fark 'em. There's always Macau.
 
2012-06-26 12:30:50 PM

vernonFL: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 612x392]

The percentage of "poor" people today who own a clothes dryer is HIGHER than the percentage of ALL people who had a clothes dryer in 1971!

Your argument is invalid.


I like the fact that they have WORKING VEHICLES; sometimes TWO?!

Wow, its almost like they HAVE to have transportation to live at all. And of course you can't fit into a quick chart the fact that these poor folks are paying through the goddamn nose for shiatty 10 year old cars they had to take out a loan to purchase.
 
2012-06-26 12:31:45 PM

vernonFL: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 612x392]

The percentage of "poor" people today who own a clothes dryer is HIGHER than the percentage of ALL people who had a clothes dryer in 1971!

Your argument is invalid.


Yeah, but the percentage of 'poor' people who own freezers and telephones is lower.
 
2012-06-26 12:32:28 PM

mat catastrophe: It's hard to eliminate poverty when every single policy enacted over forty years has increased it.

Let's start with enacting a maximum wage, followed by a meaningful minimum wage. Let's move on to destroying the profit motive in food production, then health care, then real estate.

And if the rich don't like it, fark 'em. There's always Macau.


Now that is straight up Marxism. Take note.
 
2012-06-26 12:33:11 PM
Far more money was spent on free enterprise.

But we're still supposed to believe that reduces poverty.
 
2012-06-26 12:33:19 PM
You know what stimulates the economy?

i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-26 12:33:28 PM
Feed the homeless to the hungry. Problem solved.
 
2012-06-26 12:34:03 PM
Since poverty has not been completely eliminated....let's get rid of welfare? Well, that sounds brilliant. Why didn't anyone think of that before?

In other news, since there are still drug addicts even though the war on drugs has been around for 30 years, let's start force feeding kids heroin in school lunches.
 
2012-06-26 12:34:26 PM
www.politisink.com
 
2012-06-26 12:34:32 PM
Instead of biatching about it, go out and give poor people money. I will do the same when and where i feel like it.

It's really pretty simple.
 
2012-06-26 12:35:03 PM

vernonFL: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 612x392]

The percentage of "poor" people today who own a clothes dryer is HIGHER than the percentage of ALL people who had a clothes dryer in 1971!

Your argument is invalid.


Wait... people still own VCRs?
 
2012-06-26 12:35:10 PM

mat catastrophe: It's hard to eliminate poverty when every single policy enacted over forty years has increased it.

Let's start with enacting a maximum wage, followed by a meaningful minimum wage. Let's move on to destroying the profit motive in food production, then health care, then real estate.

And if the rich don't like it, fark 'em. There's always Macau.


Which policy? EVERY POLICY. Every single thing we've done has increased poverty.

*WTF am I reading.JPEG*
 
2012-06-26 12:35:12 PM

Ball Sack Obama: Instead of biatching about it, go out and give poor people money. I will do the same when and where i feel like it.

It's really pretty simple.


Not a solution, since it doesn't solve the problem.
 
2012-06-26 12:36:36 PM
As long as racial and xenophobic demagoguery exists people will vote against their economic interests and sh*t will just keep getting worse. I speak as someone doing ethnographic work on these issues in the South. It's so depressing.
 
2012-06-26 12:38:20 PM
Without poverty, there would be no employee's for Mitt to fire
 
2012-06-26 12:38:47 PM

rustypouch: vernonFL: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 612x392]

The percentage of "poor" people today who own a clothes dryer is HIGHER than the percentage of ALL people who had a clothes dryer in 1971!

Your argument is invalid.

Wait... people still own VCRs?


Poor people do.
 
2012-06-26 12:38:53 PM

HotWingConspiracy: CapitalismHumanity demands an underclass.


FTFY
 
2012-06-26 12:39:19 PM
 
2012-06-26 12:39:29 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Yep. An eliminating the safety net for the poorest of the poor never starts bloody revolutions, either.

I thought the goal was to eliminate poverty altogether.


That has to be EVERYBODY'S goal, not just some people for it to work.
 
2012-06-26 12:40:24 PM

qorkfiend: Ball Sack Obama: Instead of biatching about it, go out and give poor people money. I will do the same when and where i feel like it.

It's really pretty simple.

Not a solution, since it doesn't solve the problem.


Sure it is. If more people biatched less and gave more, it would make a difference.

Using your logic, we should all stop recycling plastic because it won't really make any difference.
 
2012-06-26 12:41:01 PM
Obviously the solution is to cut them off completely, divert the funds to defense, bomb more countries into the stone age, then complain about Obama who let the United States turn into a third world country with more people dying of starvation.
 
2012-06-26 12:41:29 PM
I would assume we would need to develop better education programs to prepare people for the real world instead of driving student loans and higher education to levels that only the upper middle-class can survive. We probably need to stop shipping low-level jobs overseas to give the blue collar worker opportunities that just aren't there anymore. And, we'll need to reform the health care system to prevent crushing debt that can destroy families and cripple growth.

Or, I guess, we get rid of welfare and hope for the best.
 
2012-06-26 12:43:49 PM
Welfare is the cushion at the bottom, not the ladder up. It's not meant to eliminate poverty, just make it less shiatty.

We need a real program to eliminate it.
 
2012-06-26 12:46:01 PM
1) ZOMG!!! 99.6% OF "POOR" HOUSEHOLDS HAVE REFRIGERATORS. WE NEED TO CUT BACK WELFARE!!

2) ZOMG!!! AFTER TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF WELFARE, THE CONDITION OF THE POOR HASN'T CHANGED ONE IOTA!!! WE NEED TO CUT BACK WELFARE!!

The flaw in your argument... do you spies it?
 
2012-06-26 12:46:04 PM
We were doing better, then we started loosening the reins on high finance.

I'm a guy that believes there will always be some poverty, either those that cannot help it, or those too "proud" too take the assistance offered.

At least crime is still down.
 
2012-06-26 12:47:12 PM
Umm...

Would the recession have anything to do with these numbers?

Maybe?

Just Maybe?
 
2012-06-26 12:47:33 PM
What is it with the US and quagmires? Wonder if it has something to do with fighting symptoms rather than addressing underlying causes? We need more competent, apolitical civil service in this country. More technocrats, please.
 
2012-06-26 12:49:10 PM
Apparently "it hasn't eliminated poverty" is a good enough reason to erase welfare, but "it hasn't created jobs" isn't a good enough reason to stop cutting taxes on Job CreatorsTM.

/It's not class warfare, though
//Cuz we said so
 
2012-06-26 12:49:15 PM

Ball Sack Obama: qorkfiend: Ball Sack Obama: Instead of biatching about it, go out and give poor people money. I will do the same when and where i feel like it.

It's really pretty simple.

Not a solution, since it doesn't solve the problem.

Sure it is. If more people biatched less and gave more, it would make a difference.

Using your logic, we should all stop recycling plastic because it won't really make any difference.


Nice strawman. I didn't say anything about "making a difference"; I said "it's not a solution because it doesn't solve the problem".

Likewise, voluntary recycling doesn't solve the problem.
 
2012-06-26 12:49:32 PM

qorkfiend: Aar1012: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Clearly we need more tax cuts for the rich.

No no no... we need to invade Iran.

Why not both?

Now there's something everyone can enjoy.


We can't do any of that until we cut funding for NPR. Damn Public Radio Industrial Complex.
 
2012-06-26 12:51:29 PM
In other news, despite repeated attempts by liberals to improve childhood education, 50% of all students still test below average.
 
2012-06-26 12:52:57 PM

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: HotWingConspiracy: CapitalismHumanity demands an underclass.

FTFY


I'm not sure that is true, but it seems that most societal solutions end up with one.

What we really don't need is a class of a handful of wealthy supermen, it serves no purpose.
 
2012-06-26 12:53:13 PM

sweetmelissa31: qorkfiend: Aar1012: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Clearly we need more tax cuts for the rich.

No no no... we need to invade Iran.

Why not both?

Now there's something everyone can enjoy.

We can't do any of that until we cut funding for NPR. Damn Public Radio Industrial Complex.


No, stop the funding to the NEA! Look at how many recipients of the NEA grants are on the Forbes 500 List!
 
2012-06-26 12:54:20 PM
tcf.org

Considering that over 50% of all government assistance goes to the 13% of the population over 65, I'd say it's had an effect.

But screw the kids...they need to work harder.
 
2012-06-26 12:54:44 PM
In other news, despite attempts by liberals to improve greenhouse gas emissions, the Earth is still getting warmer.
 
2012-06-26 12:55:59 PM
If rich people weren't so racist, this would not have happened.
 
2012-06-26 12:57:31 PM

Marcus Aurelius: "Untold trillions"?

Someone's come unglued from reality.


Subby's penis is untold inches long.

lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2012-06-26 12:59:24 PM

lantawa: ToxicMunkee: Can't we just give them cake?

Good idea. Cake or Death.


Only if they don't realize that the cake is a lie
 
2012-06-26 12:59:58 PM

coco ebert: As long as racial and xenophobic demagoguery exists people will vote against their economic interests and sh*t will just keep getting worse. I speak as someone doing ethnographic work on these issues in the South. It's so depressing.


Can you explain or post something I can read? I'm genuinely interested.
 
2012-06-26 01:00:07 PM
So they are winning the war on poor people!
 
2012-06-26 01:00:24 PM
This is completely different because black.
 
2012-06-26 01:00:41 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Or that one of the actual stated goals of the Great Society was the elimination of poverty.


"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."
 
2012-06-26 01:00:47 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: So, let's eliminate welfare? Sounds good to me.

Staying the course for another 50 years should do the trick!


we should give up fighting crime. It's not working.
 
2012-06-26 01:01:43 PM
I find it fascinating that just on the first page the report says this:

"In total, the United States spends nearly $1 trillion every year to fight poverty."

Then says this:

"Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964,..."

We can't be averaging $1 trillion a year if we've only given 15 over the past 48 years...
 
2012-06-26 01:01:47 PM

HeartBurnKid: Dancin_In_Anson: Or that one of the actual stated goals of the Great Society was the elimination of poverty.

"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."


No, you'll drift aimlessly until you die...
 
2012-06-26 01:01:50 PM

Fart_Machine: Feed the homeless to the hungry. Problem solved.


That's quite a modest proposal
 
2012-06-26 01:03:11 PM
I would argue that during that time we have refined and recalculated what "the poverty level" is, many times. I somewhat agree with the folks who say we have the richest "poor people" in the world.
 
2012-06-26 01:03:36 PM

bugontherug: 1) ZOMG!!! 99.6% OF "POOR" HOUSEHOLDS HAVE REFRIGERATORS. WE NEED TO CUT BACK WELFARE!!

2) ZOMG!!! AFTER TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF WELFARE, THE CONDITION OF THE POOR HASN'T CHANGED ONE IOTA!!! WE NEED TO CUT BACK WELFARE!!

The flaw in your argument... do you spies it?



I love logic.
 
2012-06-26 01:05:50 PM

qorkfiend: Ball Sack Obama: qorkfiend: Ball Sack Obama: Instead of biatching about it, go out and give poor people money. I will do the same when and where i feel like it.

It's really pretty simple.

Not a solution, since it doesn't solve the problem.

Sure it is. If more people biatched less and gave more, it would make a difference.

Using your logic, we should all stop recycling plastic because it won't really make any difference.

Nice strawman. I didn't say anything about "making a difference"; I said "it's not a solution because it doesn't solve the problem".

Likewise, voluntary recycling doesn't solve the problem.


Not a strawman, more an inference. To solve the problem, you would have to first make a difference, would you not? So is your way of solving it just throwing more taxpayer money at it?
 
2012-06-26 01:06:38 PM

cato113: Fart_Machine: Feed the homeless to the hungry. Problem solved.

That's quite a modest proposal


Thank you. I was hoping for that punch line.
 
2012-06-26 01:08:52 PM

rustypouch: vernonFL: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 612x392]

The percentage of "poor" people today who own a clothes dryer is HIGHER than the percentage of ALL people who had a clothes dryer in 1971!

Your argument is invalid.

Wait... people still own VCRs?


I'm using one to watch msnbc on one of these right now.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-06-26 01:10:27 PM

HeartBurnKid: Dancin_In_Anson: Or that one of the actual stated goals of the Great Society was the elimination of poverty.

"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."


For America, the results were more like this:

cdn.babble.com
 
2012-06-26 01:10:34 PM

Ball Sack Obama: qorkfiend: Ball Sack Obama: qorkfiend: Ball Sack Obama: Instead of biatching about it, go out and give poor people money. I will do the same when and where i feel like it.

It's really pretty simple.

Not a solution, since it doesn't solve the problem.

Sure it is. If more people biatched less and gave more, it would make a difference.

Using your logic, we should all stop recycling plastic because it won't really make any difference.

Nice strawman. I didn't say anything about "making a difference"; I said "it's not a solution because it doesn't solve the problem".

Likewise, voluntary recycling doesn't solve the problem.

Not a strawman, more an inference. To solve the problem, you would have to first make a difference, would you not? So is your way of solving it just throwing more taxpayer money at it?


This misses the entire point of a solution, which is to solve a problem. "Making a difference", in and of itself, is not a solution, as the problem still exists.

Note, also, that I didn't say welfare as currently constituted is the correct solution. However, removing welfare and expecting charity to pick up the slack isn't a solution at all.
 
2012-06-26 01:12:37 PM

Ball Sack Obama: qorkfiend: Ball Sack Obama: qorkfiend: Ball Sack Obama: Instead of biatching about it, go out and give poor people money. I will do the same when and where i feel like it.

It's really pretty simple.

Not a solution, since it doesn't solve the problem.

Sure it is. If more people biatched less and gave more, it would make a difference.

Using your logic, we should all stop recycling plastic because it won't really make any difference.

Nice strawman. I didn't say anything about "making a difference"; I said "it's not a solution because it doesn't solve the problem".

Likewise, voluntary recycling doesn't solve the problem.

Not a strawman, more an inference. To solve the problem, you would have to first make a difference, would you not? So is your way of solving it just throwing more taxpayer money at it?


Is your way of solving it to just hope for that people are generous enough despite the fact that people have never been generous enough in all of human history?
 
2012-06-26 01:13:05 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So let's see.....

Unemployment 1965 - ranged between 4.0% and 5.1%

Current unemployment rate - 8.2%

So the poverty rate now is roughly the same as it was in 1965, when economic conditions were significantly better.

This is a failure in what way?


Duh, Obama is black. You really need to catch up.
 
2012-06-26 01:14:56 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So let's see.....

Unemployment 1965 - ranged between 4.0% and 5.1%

Current unemployment rate - 8.2%

So the poverty rate now is roughly the same as it was in 1965, when economic conditions were significantly better.

This is a failure in what way?


T-Servo: [tcf.org image 380x289]

Considering that over 50% of all government assistance goes to the 13% of the population over 65, I'd say it's had an effect.

But screw the kids...they need to work harder.


These are both serious objections to the premise of the article which will be ignored by the proponents of the premise of the article.
 
2012-06-26 01:15:27 PM
FTFA: CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like NPR. CNSNews.com is not funded by the government like PBS. CNSNews.com relies on individuals like you to help us report the news the liberal media distort and ignore.

Seems like an unbiased outfit to me. I can't imagine they would promote stories that fit their worldview of lazy poor people and out of control government spending (no mention of revenue).
 
2012-06-26 01:16:06 PM

coco ebert: As long as racial and xenophobic demagoguery exists people will vote against their economic interests and sh*t will just keep getting worse. I speak as someone doing ethnographic work on these issues in the South. It's so depressing.


Like Fat Old Broad, I'd also love to see some more info about this. I know it happens, and I'd love to have some nice citations when I argue with people who tell me that racism and other assorted bigotry has nothing to do with the political climate in the south.
 
2012-06-26 01:17:47 PM
You can't eliminate poverty in a capitalist society. To have winners in the system you have to have lots of losers. What welfare should do is stop people from starving or dieing from the elements. Killing people for the sake of rich people is psychotic.
 
2012-06-26 01:19:09 PM

mediaho: [www.politisink.com image 636x480]


What I find funny about the 99.6% of poor having a refrigerator is the fact that the statistic is very misleading. Because the question should have been "own" a refrigerator. I am not poor, I have never owned a refrigerator because I have always rented. Every apartment, condo, duplex, or house I have ever rented has come furnished with a refrigerator. I suspect the majority of those "poor" people don't own a refrigerator it was just there when they got there. The statistic should be 99.6% of poor people utilize a refrigerator. Generally, you have to own a home to own a refrigerator. Poor people rarely own homes.
 
2012-06-26 01:20:15 PM
We've given the Pentagon trillions of dollars over the years and we still conduct wars. Ergo, we must eliminate the DoD.

/teatard logic is fun
 
2012-06-26 01:21:42 PM

thurstonxhowell: rustypouch: vernonFL: [3.bp.blogspot.com image 612x392]

The percentage of "poor" people today who own a clothes dryer is HIGHER than the percentage of ALL people who had a clothes dryer in 1971!

Your argument is invalid.

Wait... people still own VCRs?

Poor people do.


I have a family member who's definitely poor, and I gave her one of our old VCRs. Since we're not poor, doesn't that make it a trickle down VCR?

/If the government gives me a bluray player, I'll be sure to give our DVD player to a poor person.
 
2012-06-26 01:25:43 PM

Aarontology: Congress likes giving... unique names to bills.


That's no shiat eh?

Aarontology: I know it sounds great to be all bootstrappy, but the agricultural industry is far too important to be completely left up to the whims of the market. There are reasons America doesn't have food riots, and why it's better to have a domestic farming industry instead of being completely dependent upon foreign imports for our food and the national security risks inherent in such a system. Which is exactly what would happen with the elimination of farming subsidies of all sorts.


I don't see it like that...but then again I live in a rural farming section of the world and think it would be better to see farming get back to a more local level.

vpb: Yes, and every administration and Congress since Johnson has been totally dedicated to that goal.


So they have been telling us...
 
2012-06-26 01:26:12 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: We've given the Pentagon trillions of dollars over the years and we still conduct wars. Ergo, we must eliminate the DoD.

/teatard logic is fun


lol, your fails too dude
 
2012-06-26 01:26:44 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: We've given the Pentagon trillions of dollars over the years and we still conduct wars. Ergo, we must eliminate the DoD.


Or rethink how it should be rather than maintain the status quo.
 
2012-06-26 01:28:49 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: YoungSwedishBlonde: We've given the Pentagon trillions of dollars over the years and we still conduct wars. Ergo, we must eliminate the DoD.

Or rethink how it should be rather than maintain the status quo.


Clearly the answer is to let the private sector take over responsibility for the military.
 
2012-06-26 01:30:52 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Or rethink how it should be rather than maintain the status quo.


You're right. Drawing from the shallow well of conservative thought, we should decrease the purchasing power of the lower classes and decrease the tax burden on those with the highest propensity to save.
 
2012-06-26 01:32:05 PM
To those in this thread saying the war on poverty doesn't work just wait until the next thread about social services or taxes and you will hear that poor people are living high on the hog.
 
2012-06-26 01:33:19 PM

cato113: Fart_Machine: Feed the homeless to the hungry. Problem solved.

That's quite a modest proposal


And swift, too.
 
2012-06-26 01:33:45 PM
So.........................cut off all aid to the poor?
 
2012-06-26 01:33:55 PM
Maybe if we just killed all poor people?
 
2012-06-26 01:34:30 PM
Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery
 
2012-06-26 01:35:42 PM
This makes as much sense as Captain Smith on the Titanic saying "You know what? We're running these pumps but we're still sinking. SHUT EM ALL DOWN, BOYS!"
 
2012-06-26 01:36:20 PM

Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery


Social Darwinism if you will.
 
2012-06-26 01:36:27 PM
Government isn't the solution to every problem? Now that's just crazy talk.
 
2012-06-26 01:36:28 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Dancin_In_Anson: YoungSwedishBlonde: We've given the Pentagon trillions of dollars over the years and we still conduct wars. Ergo, we must eliminate the DoD.

Or rethink how it should be rather than maintain the status quo.

Clearly the answer is to let the private sector take over responsibility for the military.


They already do to a large extent. The military produces very little.

The military are like the poor, except the make for better footage with embedded reporters.
 
2012-06-26 01:38:52 PM

Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery


And people sell beer, smokes and lottery tickets... The recipients of job creation.
 
2012-06-26 01:39:17 PM

HeartBurnKid: Dancin_In_Anson: Or that one of the actual stated goals of the Great Society was the elimination of poverty.

"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."


dcist.com
Approves
 
2012-06-26 01:40:18 PM

Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery


What working and making more money might look like.....

upload.wikimedia.org

www.autospies.com

1.bp.blogspot.com

signsofcocaineuse.com

i.telegraph.co.uk
 
2012-06-26 01:40:56 PM
From the Department of Money Well Spent: After almost 50 years and untold trillions of dollars, the US poverty level is the same as it was when war was declared

US poverty level is the same as it was when war was declared


US poverty level is the same war was declared

These things are not mutually exclusive.


/more at 11
 
2012-06-26 01:42:13 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: Dancin_In_Anson: Or rethink how it should be rather than maintain the status quo.

You're right. Drawing from the shallow well of conservative thought, we should decrease the purchasing power of the lower classes and decrease the tax burden on those with the highest propensity to save.


His prior suggestion was to make it so miserable for the poor that they wouldn't want to be poor anymore. This is the mindset you're dealing with.
 
2012-06-26 01:45:06 PM
The war on poverty has been going on 50 years, minus the number of years Republicans have held the presidency or a house of Congress.
 
2012-06-26 01:45:36 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: What working and making more money might look like.....


That was good, do one about the jews next.
 
2012-06-26 01:52:46 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: YoungSwedishBlonde: We've given the Pentagon trillions of dollars over the years and we still conduct wars. Ergo, we must eliminate the DoD.

Or rethink how it should be rather than maintain the status quo.


Excellent idea. I await the GOP's ideas on how we can reform the mental health system in this country, since they make up a large portion of those on the streets.

I'm waiting...
 
2012-06-26 01:52:54 PM

Fart_Machine: His prior suggestion was to make it so miserable for the poor that they wouldn't want to be poor anymore.


Not necessarily but thanks for derping. Laughter is the best medicine.
 
2012-06-26 01:53:02 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Yep. An eliminating the safety net for the poorest of the poor never starts bloody revolutions, either.

I thought the goal was to eliminate poverty altogether.


And by eliminating the safety net will eliminate poverty altogether?

I didn't think anyone could really be that stupid.
 
2012-06-26 01:53:58 PM

Kazrath: mediaho: [www.politisink.com image 636x480]

What I find funny about the 99.6% of poor having a refrigerator is the fact that the statistic is very misleading. Because the question should have been "own" a refrigerator. I am not poor, I have never owned a refrigerator because I have always rented. Every apartment, condo, duplex, or house I have ever rented has come furnished with a refrigerator. I suspect the majority of those "poor" people don't own a refrigerator it was just there when they got there. The statistic should be 99.6% of poor people utilize a refrigerator. Generally, you have to own a home to own a refrigerator. Poor people rarely own homes.


I think it is even more misleading than that.

10% of the poor are homeless at some point in a given year. I am guessing that those people who don't even have a home aren't pushing around a working fridge.

Even if you are talking about percentage of all Americans, the statistic is 1% are homeless. So yeah, I think those numbers Fox cited are just made up bullshiat. Shocking I know.
 
2012-06-26 01:54:52 PM
If we let the poor starve to death, there will be no more poverty.
 
2012-06-26 01:56:40 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery

What working and making more money might look like.....

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x167]

[www.autospies.com image 400x300]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x268]

[signsofcocaineuse.com image 500x334]

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x388]


Know how I know you're poor?
 
2012-06-26 01:58:44 PM

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Philip Francis Queeg: Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery

What working and making more money might look like.....

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x167]

[www.autospies.com image 400x300]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x268]

[signsofcocaineuse.com image 500x334]

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x388]

Know how I know you're poor?


Because you jump to unsupported conclusions?
 
2012-06-26 02:00:49 PM
It's worked out almost as well as the "War on Drugs."

Protip: Anytime the government declares war on something, the only winner in the war is the government.
 
2012-06-26 02:02:26 PM

HotWingConspiracy: Capitalism demands an underclass.


Human nature demand an underclass.

There will ALWAYS be people who are poor. In first world nations, they've come up with a way to make "being poor" something that won't kill you.

We're not there yet.
 
2012-06-26 02:02:36 PM
Absolutely no reason to discuss childhood mortality rates, homlessness, quality of living, or a plethora of other social indicators that are relevant.

Capitalism (and pretty much every economic system) creates poverty. You can't stop it you can just turn it into 1st world poverty as opposed to 3rd world poverty.
 
2012-06-26 02:03:35 PM
Did any of this take into account all the "reforms" of the welfare system in the last twenty years?
 
2012-06-26 02:06:57 PM

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Philip Francis Queeg: Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery

What working and making more money might look like.....

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x167]

[www.autospies.com image 400x300]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x268]

[signsofcocaineuse.com image 500x334]

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x388]

Know how I know you're poor?


Due to the wealth disparity in the United States, it's statistically more likely that he would be poor than not?
 
2012-06-26 02:09:26 PM
Well if they solved the problem they'd be out of a job.
 
2012-06-26 02:11:28 PM

Welfare Xmas: Well if they solved the problem they'd be out of a job.


And then they'd be the ones in poverty. Only a revolution of the proletariat will solve these issues.
 
2012-06-26 02:15:41 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery

What working and making more money might look like.....

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x167]

[www.autospies.com image 400x300]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x268]

[signsofcocaineuse.com image 500x334]

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x388]


Rich people are crazy and always buy frivolous shiat like that. My father-in-law used his money to buy John Deere tractor after John Deere tractor. Crazy bastard just couldn't get enough of those tractors! Can you imagine? Being so rich that all you do is buy tractors and buildings? Hell, at one point he had to pay well over 100 people to do maintenance on them. He had so many tractors that he decided to sell them, and he ended up paying people to do that for him because he got so lazy! Then it was sort of like a "business" so much that he had to hire office workers and accountants and lawyers and all kinds of crap! What all rich people do with their money, man... Makes me nuts!
 
2012-06-26 02:20:06 PM

FilmBELOH20: Philip Francis Queeg: Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery

What working and making more money might look like.....

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x167]

[www.autospies.com image 400x300]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x268]

[signsofcocaineuse.com image 500x334]

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x388]

Rich people are crazy and always buy frivolous shiat like that. My father-in-law used his money to buy John Deere tractor after John Deere tractor. Crazy bastard just couldn't get enough of those tractors! Can you imagine? Being so rich that all you do is buy tractors and buildings? Hell, at one point he had to pay well over 100 people to do maintenance on them. He had so many tractors that he decided to sell them, and he ended up paying people to do that for him because he got so lazy! Then it was sort of like a "business" so much that he had to hire office workers and accountants and lawyers and all kinds of crap! What all rich people do with their money, man... Makes me nuts!


Would he buy more tractors with his extra money, even if he didn't need them? Would he hire more people than necessary to do maintenance on them? Would he hire more office workers and accountants and lawyers than he needed?
 
2012-06-26 02:20:38 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Yep. An eliminating the safety net for the poorest of the poor never starts bloody revolutions, either.

I thought the goal was to eliminate poverty altogether.


2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-06-26 02:21:13 PM

Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery


And food, and gas, and pay rent, and clothes, and shoes, and they pay school fees and pay for all sorts of other things, too, when they have money. And when they don't they do without.

You have obviously never been poor. When I was a kid we were poor, mom worked 3 jobs for a while to care for us 4 kids. One year we all got a pair of gloves for christmas.

You want to know what else we had? We all had bikes, we all participated in sports, we all took the occasional vacation, and we all had personal items that were not absolutely neccessary for survival.

The difference between poor and rich in this regard is that the poor smoke American Eagle cigarettes, and occasionally can't afford to buy another pack, and the rich smoke cuban cigars. The poor drink PBR when they can have a little cash, and the rich drink 50 year old scotch. The poor buy lottery tickets because they represent hope, exactly like they're marketed to do.

And those refridgerators the poor have? They're 30 years old and have a broken crisper.

I suppose a few welfare recipients are probably content with that, but if you think most are you are stupid.
 
2012-06-26 02:22:12 PM

Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery


you forgot drugs....
 
2012-06-26 02:22:44 PM

Shvetz: You know what stimulates the economy?

[i.imgur.com image 635x389]




How much would 100% employment put back into the economy?

how do you get what you put into it, plus an extra .63 cents out of unemployment? What about food stamps? How do you get what you put into it plus an extra .74 cents out of food stamps?

Why not mandate 100% food stamp participation from the population and grow our economy by 174%?

Something tells me it doesn't work that way...why not?
 
2012-06-26 02:23:26 PM

Epoch_Zero: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Philip Francis Queeg: Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery

What working and making more money might look like.....

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x167]

[www.autospies.com image 400x300]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x268]

[signsofcocaineuse.com image 500x334]

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x388]

Know how I know you're poor?

Due to the wealth disparity in the United States, it's statistically more likely that he would be poor than not?


LOLWUT
 
2012-06-26 02:23:51 PM
I feel a sense of smug, po' folk satisfaction whenever I hang my laundry out on the clothesline.

"I ain't gotta pay the wind and sun, ya gol'darned energy company," I say, shaking my fist at the sky.
 
2012-06-26 02:24:16 PM

James!: mat catastrophe: It's hard to eliminate poverty when every single policy enacted over forty years has increased it.

Let's start with enacting a maximum wage, followed by a meaningful minimum wage. Let's move on to destroying the profit motive in food production, then health care, then real estate.

And if the rich don't like it, fark 'em. There's always Macau.

Now that is straight up Marxism. Take note.


My reaction to the right-wing incorrectly labeling the center-right Democrats as "socialists" is to actually talk like a "communist".

It's the only way. If they can stretch the conversation that far to the right so that moderate liberal policies seem leftist, then you have to show them what leftism really means.
 
2012-06-26 02:26:08 PM

Jackson Herring: Maybe if we just killed all poor people?


Oh come on these people can't do anything themselves. We have to use our hard earned strength to kill them too? Why can't they pick themselves up by their noose straps?
 
2012-06-26 02:27:39 PM

jojostan: Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Yep. An eliminating the safety net for the poorest of the poor never starts bloody revolutions, either.

I thought the goal was to eliminate poverty altogether.



2.bp.blogspot.com

dancininanson.net
 
2012-06-26 02:28:45 PM
If God wanted poor people to stop being poor, He'd make them born with bootstraps in their hands.
 
2012-06-26 02:28:51 PM

mat catastrophe: James!: mat catastrophe: It's hard to eliminate poverty when every single policy enacted over forty years has increased it.

Let's start with enacting a maximum wage, followed by a meaningful minimum wage. Let's move on to destroying the profit motive in food production, then health care, then real estate.

And if the rich don't like it, fark 'em. There's always Macau.

Now that is straight up Marxism. Take note.

My reaction to the right-wing incorrectly labeling the center-right Democrats as "socialists" is to actually talk like a "communist".

It's the only way. If they can stretch the conversation that far to the right so that moderate liberal policies seem leftist, then you have to show them what leftism really means.


I like it.
 
2012-06-26 02:29:25 PM

Giltric: Shvetz: You know what stimulates the economy?

[i.imgur.com image 635x389]



How much would 100% employment put back into the economy?

how do you get what you put into it, plus an extra .63 cents out of unemployment? What about food stamps? How do you get what you put into it plus an extra .74 cents out of food stamps?

Why not mandate 100% food stamp participation from the population and grow our economy by 174%?

Something tells me it doesn't work that way...why not?


Couldn't possibly be the fact that using food stamps frees up money to be spent on other things.
 
2012-06-26 02:31:33 PM

Giltric: Shvetz: You know what stimulates the economy?

[i.imgur.com image 635x389]



How much would 100% employment put back into the economy?

how do you get what you put into it, plus an extra .63 cents out of unemployment? What about food stamps? How do you get what you put into it plus an extra .74 cents out of food stamps?

Why not mandate 100% food stamp participation from the population and grow our economy by 174%?

Something tells me it doesn't work that way...why not?


Because you're taking things to an unreasonable extreme. Carrots are healthy for you, therefore you can eat nothing but carrots for the rest of your life and be perfectly healthy. See? We need to find a good middle ground. Right now, we are heavily skewed towards wealth accumulating at the very top. Pretty soon, American companies won't just outsource labor, they'll have to outsource their customers as well.

Also, if you're confused as to how food stamps generate economic stimulus in a bad economy, look up "velocity of money." If you qualify for food stamps, you probably aren't saving tons of money, waiting for the economy to get better. You're spending every dollar that comes in on basic necessities. Companies are just sitting on piles of cash, waiting for the economy to pick up so they have actual customers. Cutting their taxes won't make them hire people. Giving them customers will.
 
2012-06-26 02:34:58 PM

qorkfiend: Couldn't possibly be the fact that using food stamps frees up money to be spent on other things.


But that money was taken from someone else who could have spent it themselves.....wasn't it?
 
2012-06-26 02:36:02 PM
Anyone ever notice that other than the Liberation of Kuwait, all the "Wars" we fought since WWII have ended in a draw or worse?

I think the US should retire from war we are clearly no longer at the top of our game.
 
2012-06-26 02:37:15 PM

FilmBELOH20: Philip Francis Queeg: Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery

What working and making more money might look like.....

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x167]

[www.autospies.com image 400x300]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x268]

[signsofcocaineuse.com image 500x334]

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x388]

Rich people are crazy and always buy frivolous shiat like that. My father-in-law used his money to buy John Deere tractor after John Deere tractor. Crazy bastard just couldn't get enough of those tractors! Can you imagine? Being so rich that all you do is buy tractors and buildings? Hell, at one point he had to pay well over 100 people to do maintenance on them. He had so many tractors that he decided to sell them, and he ended up paying people to do that for him because he got so lazy! Then it was sort of like a "business" so much that he had to hire office workers and accountants and lawyers and all kinds of crap! What all rich people do with their money, man... Makes me nuts!


Cool story bro. If rich people create jobs and rich people are the richest they have ever been, where are the farking jobs?
 
2012-06-26 02:39:05 PM
1.bp.blogspot.com

Funny how the Great Society reforms resulted in the poverty rate plunging, it leveled off in 1979-1980, then rose dramatically with every Republican administration. Until 1993 or so, when it plunged during the Clinton administration.

Also, too I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for "trillions of dollars" spent on the "War on Poverty." Seems like that figure comes from the Office of Pulling it Out of Your Arse.
 
2012-06-26 02:39:59 PM

vpb: Yes, and every administration and Congress since Johnson has been totally dedicated to that goal.


More importantly, there haven't been any that have sought to completely undermine that goal. We've been working towards it completely since day one. The plight of every citizen, rich or poor, has always been at the forefront of our government's concerns. Also I'm f*cking a unicorn in the ass and cumming cherry limeade as we speak.
 
2012-06-26 02:41:15 PM

mrshowrules: If rich people create jobs and rich people are the richest they have ever been, where are the farking jobs?


THIS THIS THIS THIS.
 
2012-06-26 02:41:26 PM
mediaho:

www.politisink.com

When it comes time to eat the rich, you don't want the meat to go bad worse
 
2012-06-26 02:42:49 PM

FilmBELOH20: Rich people are crazy and always buy frivolous shiat like that. My father-in-law used his money to buy John Deere tractor after John Deere tractor. Crazy bastard just couldn't get enough of those tractors! Can you imagine? Being so rich that all you do is buy tractors and buildings? Hell, at one point he had to pay well over 100 people to do maintenance on them. He had so many tractors that he decided to sell them, and he ended up paying people to do that for him because he got so lazy! Then it was sort of like a "business" so much that he had to hire office workers and accountants and lawyers and all kinds of crap! What all rich people do with their money, man... Makes me nuts!


I bet he wouldn't sell many tractors without farm welfare...errr subsidies. Does that make your father-in-law one of them thar welfare queens the city folks talk about so much?

Hell, at one point he HAD to pay well over 100 people to do maintenance on them. Thanks for admitting that he did not "create" any jobs since he HAD to hire 100 people to do the work. He took advantage of the demand and profited from it, but he didn't create a single freaking job. That demand is created through government programs. If you and your father-in-law disagree, call your congressman and tell him to end all farm subsidies today. Let's see how many of those 100 people are working in a few months.
 
2012-06-26 02:43:21 PM

mrshowrules: Cool story bro. If rich people create jobs and rich people are the richest they have ever been, where are the farking jobs?



They'll get on that, right after they hand tens of millions of dollars over to some PACs to make attack ads against the president that claim the economy's so bad for job creators.
 
2012-06-26 02:44:41 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Fart_Machine: His prior suggestion was to make it so miserable for the poor that they wouldn't want to be poor anymore.

Not necessarily but thanks for derping. Laughter is the best medicine.


Yes summarizing your Derp is quite hilarious.
 
2012-06-26 02:44:56 PM

EyeballKid: mrshowrules: Cool story bro. If rich people create jobs and rich people are the richest they have ever been, where are the farking jobs?


They'll get on that, right after they hand tens of millions of dollars over to some PACs to make attack ads against the president that claim the economy's so bad for job creators.


Which creates a job for some jackass' brother-in-law's jackass kid that knows Adobe Premier. For a little while. He gets $10,000. The rest goes to... something. Golf. Or. Strippers. I dunno.
 
2012-06-26 02:45:35 PM

ManateeGag: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Clearly we need more tax cuts for the rich.

No no no... we need to invade Iran.

wait, if we arm the poor and have THEM invade Iran, we can take care of two problems at once!


I have an idea. We could make college REALLY expensive, and then offer some kind of financial aid in exchange for service in the military!
 
2012-06-26 02:46:00 PM
Gee, I wonder what could have happened to derail the Great Society's promise to end poverty; would it rhyme with "Neat Spam Door"?
 
2012-06-26 02:49:05 PM

lilbjorn: mediaho:

[www.politisink.com image 636x480]

When it comes time to eat the rich, you don't want the meat to go bad worse


Notice the nomenclature. HAVE a refrigerator, and not OWN a refrigerator.

Because when you ask "do you own a refridgerator?" you hear a lot of "No, I rent it."
 
2012-06-26 02:49:25 PM

DoBeDoBeDo: Anyone ever notice that other than the Liberation of Kuwait, all the "Wars" we fought since WWII have ended in a draw or worse?

I think the US should retire from war we are clearly no longer at the top of our game.


We did pretty well in Graneda, too.

Seriously, I think it has to do wih the objective. We chased Saddam out of Kuwait, and then we were done. I know we maintained a presence there, and enforced a no fly zone, but we weren't actively involved in combat operations, no war.

I don't have a clear picture of the goal in Afghanistan, and never understood what it was in Iraq. Same thing with Vietnam, was there a goal beyond stopping the spread of cumminism?
 
2012-06-26 02:49:57 PM

LibertyHiller: Gee, I wonder what could have happened to derail the Great Society's promise to end poverty; would it rhyme with "Neat Spam Door"?


Nope. "Republicans" doesn't rhyme with that.
 
2012-06-26 02:50:33 PM

max_pooper: I seriously doubt the numbers on this chart. I really doubt 98.5 percent of poor people own refrigerators. They probably have one in their apartment that is provided by the landlord but they certainly do not "own" one.


Even if they do, a refrigerator is not a luxury item, it's a basic necessity of modern life. But I suppose the poor should waste even more of the little money they have going to the store every day and throwing away a lot of rotting food.

Those statistics are a disingenuous attack on the "luxury" of the poor. Maybe a cell phone was an indulgence 20 years ago, but today a PAYG phone is about $15, and an important item to own if you have a family, are looking for a job, etc.
 
2012-06-26 02:51:34 PM

EyeballKid: LibertyHiller: Gee, I wonder what could have happened to derail the Great Society's promise to end poverty; would it rhyme with "Neat Spam Door"?

Nope. "Republicans" doesn't rhyme with that.


Caffer Lurve.
 
2012-06-26 02:52:21 PM

ImpendingCynic: Maybe a cell phone was an indulgence 20 years ago, but today a PAYG phone is about $15, and an important item to own if you have a family, are looking for a job, etc.


It's also generally the only phone a person owns. I haven't had a land line since I moved out of my mother's house in 1998.
 
2012-06-26 02:52:23 PM
Don't certain folks round here like to crow about how "well off" the poor in America are compared to the poor in the rest of the world?
 
2012-06-26 02:53:46 PM
The CATO Institute has a legitimate, workable plan to eliminating poverty: letting all the poor people starve to death.
 
2012-06-26 02:56:18 PM

snowjack: The CATO Institute has a legitimate, workable plan to eliminating poverty: letting all the poor people starve to death.


Yeah, but they just ripped it off from the GOP.
 
2012-06-26 02:56:29 PM

keylock71: Don't certain folks round here like to crow about how "well off" the poor in America are compared to the poor in the rest of the world?


Which I would think we should be proud of. Our poor should live like goddamn kings compared to the richest motherf*cker anywhere else in the world. And we should be striving to ensure they live like goddamn space kings of superplanet badass compared to everyone else. Because we're America and we're supposed to be the sh*t. I don't want to hear "oh, the poor have the most basic communication tools and they can keep their food cold so it's good enough." I want the poor in my country to be better off than anyone else in the world, because I want my country to be that awesome.

You could call me a patriot if you ignore the fact my car has no yellow ribbon bumper stickers.
 
2012-06-26 02:57:08 PM

Fat Old Broad: coco ebert: As long as racial and xenophobic demagoguery exists people will vote against their economic interests and sh*t will just keep getting worse. I speak as someone doing ethnographic work on these issues in the South. It's so depressing.

Can you explain or post something I can read? I'm genuinely interested.


Well, similar to Wisconsin, many union members here vote Republican. They get enticed on issues like guns or immigration, yet don't recognize that Republicans want to gut their right to collectively bargain and have access to honest work for an honest wage. Racial politics are still an issue in the south.
 
2012-06-26 02:58:17 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: vpb: Yes, and every administration and Congress since Johnson has been totally dedicated to that goal.

More importantly, there haven't been any that have sought to completely undermine that goal. We've been working towards it completely since day one. The plight of every citizen, rich or poor, has always been at the forefront of our government's concerns. Also I'm f*cking a unicorn in the ass and cumming cherry limeade as we speak.


You must be rich because half price cherry limeade isn't until 2pm, and it's not two yet in your time zone.
 
2012-06-26 02:58:43 PM

Don't Troll Me Bro!: coco ebert: As long as racial and xenophobic demagoguery exists people will vote against their economic interests and sh*t will just keep getting worse. I speak as someone doing ethnographic work on these issues in the South. It's so depressing.

Like Fat Old Broad, I'd also love to see some more info about this. I know it happens, and I'd love to have some nice citations when I argue with people who tell me that racism and other assorted bigotry has nothing to do with the political climate in the south.


Hmm, as for sources- let me think on that a bit and I will post some later today in this thread.
 
2012-06-26 02:59:21 PM
"Please make a tax-deductible gift to CNSNews.com today. Your continued support will ensure that CNSNews.com is here reporting THE TRUTH, for a long time to come. It's fast, easy and secure."

Why, the nerve. These lazy shiftless bastards want a handout. Goddamn commie pinkos.

Also, gotta love the way they capitalize "the truth." Praise the supply-side lawd!
 
2012-06-26 02:59:50 PM

Shvetz: Right now, we are heavily skewed towards wealth accumulating at the very top


Well the beauty of that is that in the United States you can go from living in your car to filthy rich overnight.

Even people with a popular website can find themselves worth 20 billion dollars after their company goes public.

When you compare a large sample size like the 99% and a small sample size like the top 1% any gains by that top 1% is going to skew the stats.
 
2012-06-26 03:00:56 PM

keylock71: Don't certain folks round here like to crow about how "well off" the poor in America are compared to the poor in the rest of the world?


Hey if you make $32k a year you are in the richest 1% of the world. Occupy Earth!!

/amidoingitright?
 
2012-06-26 03:03:01 PM

bgilmore5: I bet he wouldn't sell many tractors without farm welfare...errr subsidies. Does that make your father-in-law one of them thar welfare queens the city folks talk about so much?


It isn't bad when me and mine benefit from it.

And btw, to all of you bootstrappy, rugged internet individualists: No matter how smart, capable, and independent you are, someone or something somewhere either is or has paid part of your karmic way. Examples? Aforementioned farm program, public schools, student loans, cops and the military keeping the peace, and even the animals you eat.
 
2012-06-26 03:06:35 PM

Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery


Not sure if serious, but here's a primer.

Consumption of any kind drives demand which creates jobs. So there's nothing wrong economically with the poor using their money for beer, smokes, Hyundais, Taco Bell, or hookers. It's as valuable as buying jewelry, vacuum cleaners, or your wife a facelift. It all creates demand for labor.

Just having a money supply doesn't create any demand. Investment itself cannot create jobs because there is no need for supply to be created without a demand. Investment is an efficient way to mobilize supply to meed demand. It cannot create supply (jobs) in the absence of demand (poor people buying smokes, beer, and lotto tickets).
 
2012-06-26 03:06:52 PM

derpdeederp: /amidoingitright?


Acting like a moron? Yes, you're doing a bang up job. Well done.
 
2012-06-26 03:07:47 PM
Headline: From the Department of Money Well Spent: After almost 50 years and untold trillions of dollars, the US poverty level is the same as it was when war were declared

3.bp.blogspot.com

/Really, I'm the first? You're slippin', Fark.
 
2012-06-26 03:08:06 PM

Fat Old Broad: Aforementioned farm program, public schools, student loans, cops and the military keeping the peace, and even the animals you eat.


You mean programs and things the bootstrappy, rugged internet individualists pay for through taxes?


Next thing I bet you will say is that a brand new 300k$ Cat D-5 will make me more money then I paid for it in a years time.
 
2012-06-26 03:09:48 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: keylock71: Don't certain folks round here like to crow about how "well off" the poor in America are compared to the poor in the rest of the world?

Which I would think we should be proud of. Our poor should live like goddamn kings compared to the richest motherf*cker anywhere else in the world. And we should be striving to ensure they live like goddamn space kings of superplanet badass compared to everyone else. Because we're America and we're supposed to be the sh*t. I don't want to hear "oh, the poor have the most basic communication tools and they can keep their food cold so it's good enough." I want the poor in my country to be better off than anyone else in the world, because I want my country to be that awesome.

You could call me a patriot if you ignore the fact my car has no yellow ribbon bumper stickers.


Heh... I want to live on "Superplanet Badass".
 
2012-06-26 03:10:01 PM

jcooli09: DoBeDoBeDo: Anyone ever notice that other than the Liberation of Kuwait, all the "Wars" we fought since WWII have ended in a draw or worse?

I think the US should retire from war we are clearly no longer at the top of our game.

We did pretty well in Graneda, too.

Seriously, I think it has to do wih the objective. We chased Saddam out of Kuwait, and then we were done. I know we maintained a presence there, and enforced a no fly zone, but we weren't actively involved in combat operations, no war.

I don't have a clear picture of the goal in Afghanistan, and never understood what it was in Iraq. Same thing with Vietnam, was there a goal beyond stopping the spread of cumminism?


Can we even consider Grenada a war? I think more guys get hurt in the average week on bases in the US than did in Grenada.

But yes, clear objectives lead to proper planning, proper planning leads to better outcomes.
 
2012-06-26 03:12:23 PM
The War on Poverty failed for one reason: Democrats have no idea how to win a war.
 
2012-06-26 03:14:42 PM
So what? The war on the middle class has been more effective than the war on poverty.

Both sides are bad, vote Quimby.
 
2012-06-26 03:16:08 PM
We're at the same poverty level because without it you'd have too many Chiefs and not enough indians.

And we can't have that.
 
2012-06-26 03:18:09 PM

Giltric: Shvetz: Right now, we are heavily skewed towards wealth accumulating at the very top

Well the beauty of that is that in the United States you can go from living in your car to filthy rich overnight.

Even people with a popular website can find themselves worth 20 billion dollars after their company goes public.

When you compare a large sample size like the 99% and a small sample size like the top 1% any gains by that top 1% is going to skew the stats.


Haha that sort of social mobility is a fantasy. You may as well tell people to invest in lotto tickets. It's not even an issue of "social justice" or "fairness." We are bankrupting the middle class, and American companies are losing those customers because they can't afford to buy anything.

If we want to create jobs, give money to people living paycheck to paycheck. They won't sit on the money, they'll inject it directly into local businesses that can't outsource labor. That's why we such such positive returns on food stamps. We live in a trickle up economy. It's never been trickle down.

The vast, overwhelming majority of global economists think that supply-side economics is nonsense. It's only in the United States, where we still live on this fantasy that companies will create jobs without customers.
 
2012-06-26 03:20:00 PM
Fark the poor!! WOO HOO!
 
2012-06-26 03:21:57 PM

bgilmore5: FilmBELOH20: Rich people are crazy and always buy frivolous shiat like that. My father-in-law used his money to buy John Deere tractor after John Deere tractor. Crazy bastard just couldn't get enough of those tractors! Can you imagine? Being so rich that all you do is buy tractors and buildings? Hell, at one point he had to pay well over 100 people to do maintenance on them. He had so many tractors that he decided to sell them, and he ended up paying people to do that for him because he got so lazy! Then it was sort of like a "business" so much that he had to hire office workers and accountants and lawyers and all kinds of crap! What all rich people do with their money, man... Makes me nuts!

I bet he wouldn't sell many tractors without farm welfare...errr subsidies. Does that make your father-in-law one of them thar welfare queens the city folks talk about so much?

Hell, at one point he HAD to pay well over 100 people to do maintenance on them. Thanks for admitting that he did not "create" any jobs since he HAD to hire 100 people to do the work. He took advantage of the demand and profited from it, but he didn't create a single freaking job. That demand is created through government programs. If you and your father-in-law disagree, call your congressman and tell him to end all farm subsidies today. Let's see how many of those 100 people are working in a few months.


Actually, he wasn't a farm implement dealer, he sold John Deere yellow brand - construction equipment.... And how do you feel one isn't creating a job if he invests his money in a new business that requires workers even if it is a farm? Smug away to your hearts content if it will make you feel better, but you're an idiot.
 
2012-06-26 03:22:10 PM

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Epoch_Zero: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Philip Francis Queeg: Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery

What working and making more money might look like.....

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x167]

[www.autospies.com image 400x300]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x268]

[signsofcocaineuse.com image 500x334]

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x388]

Know how I know you're poor?

Due to the wealth disparity in the United States, it's statistically more likely that he would be poor than not?

LOLWUT


LOLHERE

1998:
www.therationalradical.com

2007:
acivilamericandebate.files.wordpress.com

2010:
policygrinder.com

See a trend anywhere? As in, wealth being concentrated in a smaller and smaller group of people, thereby increasing the chances that any random american is poor? Hint: it's the number things.


And comparing perfect equality, moderate inequality and the equality in US:
www.indyweek.com


LOLMIDDLECLASSISfarkED
 
2012-06-26 03:25:01 PM
I like when conservatives give left leaning people shiat for having "refrigerators" or "cars" or fancy "cell phones". I just remember this lovely quote:

laborquotes.weebly.com

"Nothing is too good for the working class"
 
2012-06-26 03:27:39 PM

LibertyHiller: Gee, I wonder what could have happened to derail the Great Society's promise to end poverty; would it rhyme with "Neat Spam Door"?


Alright. What rhymes with "Neat Spam Door"? "Eat the poor"?
 
2012-06-26 03:29:31 PM

keylock71: derpdeederp: /amidoingitright?

Acting like a moron? Yes, you're doing a bang up job. Well done.


Ohh you, I feel right into your trap!
 
2012-06-26 03:33:48 PM
Oh for fark's sake. you could give $20 million to every single person who currently gets food stamps and other assistance, and you all know that 99% of them would blow through it all in one year and be right back to where they started.

It's an uncomfortable truth, but most people who are impoverished are not "wronged" by society; they are just doing it wrong.
 
2012-06-26 03:35:17 PM

RumsfeldsReplacement: Oh for fark's sake. you could give $20 million to every single person who currently gets food stamps and other assistance, and you all know that 99% of them would blow through it all in one year and be right back to where they started.

It's an uncomfortable truth, but most people who are impoverished are not "wronged" by society; they are just doing it wrong.


Yah. We know. That's why we don't give them $20 million up front, and instead spread it out in the form of programs like food stamps.
 
2012-06-26 03:35:24 PM

Epoch_Zero: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Epoch_Zero: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Philip Francis Queeg: Trance750: Because, like it or not, the rich use their money to work and make more money. The poor use their money for beer, smokes, and the lottery

What working and making more money might look like.....

[upload.wikimedia.org image 250x167]

[www.autospies.com image 400x300]

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x268]

[signsofcocaineuse.com image 500x334]

[i.telegraph.co.uk image 620x388]

Know how I know you're poor?

Due to the wealth disparity in the United States, it's statistically more likely that he would be poor than not?

LOLWUT

LOLHERE

1998:
[www.therationalradical.com image 376x260]

2007:
[acivilamericandebate.files.wordpress.com image 640x361]

2010:
[policygrinder.com image 323x399]

See a trend anywhere? As in, wealth being concentrated in a smaller and smaller group of people, thereby increasing the chances that any random american is poor? Hint: it's the number things.


And comparing perfect equality, moderate inequality and the equality in US:
[www.indyweek.com image 600x375]


LOLMIDDLECLASSISfarkED


Those charts don't mean what you think they mean. You said "it's statistically more likely that he would be poor than not." The percentage of Americans in poverty has fluctuated between 11% and 15% since the 60s. So, therefore it is unlikely he would be poor rather than so (although I can tell by his post, he is). Hint: it's the number things.

LOLUMAD
 
2012-06-26 03:37:05 PM

RumsfeldsReplacement: Oh for fark's sake. you could give $20 million to every single person who currently gets food stamps and other assistance, and you all know that 99% of them would blow through it all in one year and be right back to where they started.

It's an uncomfortable truth, but most people who are impoverished are not "wronged" by society; they are just doing it wrong.


Poor people are normally poor in more ways than just financial.
 
2012-06-26 03:38:06 PM
vernonFL
The percentage of "poor" people today who own a clothes dryer is HIGHER than the percentage of ALL people who had a clothes dryer in 1971!

Just look at all those Lucky Duckies with refrigerators!

KhanAidan
We can't be averaging $1 trillion a year if we've only given 15 over the past 48 years...

Since they pulled those numbers out of their asses, we can be doing anything they say we are.

Ball Sack Obama
So is your way of solving it just throwing more taxpayer money at it?

Who suggested just throwing more money at it? We need more effective ideas, but what we don't need is to cut funding to the poor like so many in the GOP want to do.
 
2012-06-26 03:39:36 PM

RumsfeldsReplacement: Oh for fark's sake. you could give $20 million to every single person who currently gets food stamps and other assistance, and you all know that 99% of them would blow through it all in one year and be right back to where they started.

It's an uncomfortable truth, but most people who are impoverished are not "wronged" by society; they are just doing it wrong.


Incorrect on all counts. A failure of an opinion, one might say.
 
2012-06-26 03:43:37 PM
Expecting to reduce poverty simply by handing out government money is like expecting to bail out a bathtub by removing a bucketful at one end and dumping it in the other.
 
2012-06-26 03:47:48 PM

YoungSwedishBlonde: We've given the Pentagon trillions of dollars over the years and we still conduct wars. Ergo, we must eliminate the DoD.

/teatard logic is fun


Was just bored at work and was perusing the Boneyard at Davis Monthan. Can you just imagine how many BILLIONS are tied up in just this one scrap heap?

militarybases.com
 
2012-06-26 03:48:27 PM

jjorsett: Expecting to reduce poverty simply by handing out government money is like expecting to bail out a bathtub by removing a bucketful at one end and dumping it in the other.


Expecting a simplified analogy from a conservative to make any sense is like expecting to eliminate the deficit and unemployment with more tax cuts for the rich.
 
2012-06-26 03:48:33 PM

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Those charts don't mean what you think they mean. You said "it's statistically more likely that he would be poor than not." The percentage of Americans in poverty has fluctuated between 11% and 15% since the 60s. So, therefore it is unlikely he would be poor rather than so (although I can tell by his post, he is). Hint: it's the number things.

LOLUMAD


I never said "in poverty" - I said "poor" - as you did. Those in poverty would be a subgroup of the poor. You can be poor in this country without being in poverty, as poverty is now a legal limit for benefits and whatnot. For instance, someone can be extremely struggling to get by while still making too much to be applicable for relief benefits; which is a group of people that has increased since 2000 at the direct consequence of trickle down economic policies.

So, I am technically correct (the best kind of correct; any random american is more likely to be poor due to the wealth disparity in the united states.

/nomad
 
2012-06-26 03:49:04 PM

jjorsett: Expecting to reduce poverty simply by handing out government money is like expecting to bail out a bathtub by removing a bucketful at one end and dumping it in the other.


Hmmm.

1. L end of bathtub = Government
2. R end of bathtub = Poor person
3. L end of bathtub = Government

Not trying to argue here, but I don't get the analogy on step 3. The poor person doesn't give the government any money. Who is what here? I like a good analogy, but I don't think this actually works.
 
2012-06-26 03:53:17 PM

Maud Dib: YoungSwedishBlonde: We've given the Pentagon trillions of dollars over the years and we still conduct wars. Ergo, we must eliminate the DoD.

/teatard logic is fun

Was just bored at work and was perusing the Boneyard at Davis Monthan. Can you just imagine how many BILLIONS are tied up in just this one scrap heap?

[militarybases.com image 480x383]


Looks to me like we should increase the military budget.
 
2012-06-26 03:57:48 PM

Epoch_Zero: Maud Dib: YoungSwedishBlonde: We've given the Pentagon trillions of dollars over the years and we still conduct wars. Ergo, we must eliminate the DoD.

/teatard logic is fun

Was just bored at work and was perusing the Boneyard at Davis Monthan. Can you just imagine how many BILLIONS are tied up in just this one scrap heap?

[militarybases.com image 480x383]

Looks to me like we should increase the military budget.


I believe the concept is to give the military money so we dont get attacked. Wars always happen, we just want it on their soil, not our own.
 
2012-06-26 03:59:03 PM
I call bullshiat.
 
2012-06-26 03:59:24 PM

Epoch_Zero: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Those charts don't mean what you think they mean. You said "it's statistically more likely that he would be poor than not." The percentage of Americans in poverty has fluctuated between 11% and 15% since the 60s. So, therefore it is unlikely he would be poor rather than so (although I can tell by his post, he is). Hint: it's the number things.

LOLUMAD

I never said "in poverty" - I said "poor" - as you did. Those in poverty would be a subgroup of the poor. You can be poor in this country without being in poverty, as poverty is now a legal limit for benefits and whatnot. For instance, someone can be extremely struggling to get by while still making too much to be applicable for relief benefits; which is a group of people that has increased since 2000 at the direct consequence of trickle down economic policies.

So, I am technically correct (the best kind of correct; any random american is more likely to be poor due to the wealth disparity in the united states.

/nomad


You got a chart for your definition of poor? Hey you can make up your own definition of "poor" if you want and change the goalposts. I'll stick to the poverty line as defined by the DHHS.

Curious, would someone who bought too much house and couldn't furnish it, living week to week on their several hundred thousand dollar income be considered poor? According to your definition, yes.
 
2012-06-26 03:59:24 PM

RumsfeldsReplacement: Oh for fark's sake. you could give $20 million to every single person who currently gets food stamps and other assistance, and you all know that 99% of them would blow through it all in one year and be right back to where they started.

It's an uncomfortable truth, but most people who are impoverished are not "wronged" by society; they are just doing it wrong.


In other news, opinions are now facts.
 
2012-06-26 04:00:48 PM

derpdeederp: Epoch_Zero: Maud Dib: YoungSwedishBlonde: We've given the Pentagon trillions of dollars over the years and we still conduct wars. Ergo, we must eliminate the DoD.

/teatard logic is fun

Was just bored at work and was perusing the Boneyard at Davis Monthan. Can you just imagine how many BILLIONS are tied up in just this one scrap heap?

[militarybases.com image 480x383]

Looks to me like we should increase the military budget.

I believe the concept is to give the military money so we dont get attacked. Wars always happen, we just want it on their soil, not our own.


You mean, giving money to the military so we can go out and bomb people, and then act surprised when they retaliate and in response give even more money to the military, resulting in boneyards like the one pictured due to the waste and bloodthirst of our current military and those who lead it?

Yeah, sort of like that.
 
2012-06-26 04:01:04 PM

qorkfiend: LibertyHiller: Gee, I wonder what could have happened to derail the Great Society's promise to end poverty; would it rhyme with "Neat Spam Door"?

Alright. What rhymes with "Neat Spam Door"? "Eat the poor"?


Vietnam War.
 
2012-06-26 04:05:56 PM

LibertyHiller: qorkfiend: LibertyHiller: Gee, I wonder what could have happened to derail the Great Society's promise to end poverty; would it rhyme with "Neat Spam Door"?

Alright. What rhymes with "Neat Spam Door"? "Eat the poor"?

Vietnam War.


Okay. That was driving me insane. Veet nam war kinda rhymes with Neat Spam Door. I would say Pee Spit Slam Core rhymes better though. But Vietnam is a really hard word to rhyme. Most of the time.
 
2012-06-26 04:07:44 PM

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: I'll stick to the poverty line as defined by the DHHS.

Curious, would someone who bought too much house and couldn't furnish it, living week to week on their several hundred thousand dollar income be considered poor? According to your definition, yes.

2012 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in
family/household Poverty guideline
1 $11,170
2 15,130
3 19,090
4 23,050
5 27,010
6 30,970
7 34,930
8 38,890
For families/households with more than 8 persons,
add $3,960 for each additional person.


No.
 
2012-06-26 04:10:15 PM

Epoch_Zero: de
You mean, giving money to the military so we can go out and bomb people, and then act surprised when they retaliate and in response give even more money to the military, resulting in boneyards like the one pictured due to the waste and bloodthirst of our current military and those who lead it?

Yeah, sort of like that.


Yep, personally, I think moving to a privatized security forces is a good move. It shifts the cost of security to the private sector and to the goods that they produce. Im all for reduction in military funding, we need to get this debt under control some how, but wont be surprised when the corporations and businesses start supplying their own private militaries to protect their interests.

Any thoughts on allowing private militaries to pick up the slack for reducing the US military?
 
2012-06-26 04:10:57 PM

Maud Dib: YoungSwedishBlonde: We've given the Pentagon trillions of dollars over the years and we still conduct wars. Ergo, we must eliminate the DoD.

/teatard logic is fun

Was just bored at work and was perusing the Boneyard at Davis Monthan. Can you just imagine how many BILLIONS are tied up in just this one scrap heap?

[militarybases.com image 480x383]


Imagine how much Americans spend because they have to "drive new every two".....those C-141s were introduced in 1965.
 
2012-06-26 04:11:38 PM

LibertyHiller: Vietnam War.


Nyet Ham Four? They were the Russian Kosher version of Beatlemania.

Work really sucks today.
 
2012-06-26 04:12:06 PM
The goal was never to end poverty.

The goal was (and still is) to get as many people as possible dependent on, and voting for, those who promise the most handouts.
 
2012-06-26 04:15:58 PM

Cinaed: I'm mildly curious what the poverty rate would be without all of the social programs.


aaaaahhhhhaaaa!

this.
 
2012-06-26 04:17:57 PM

cchris_39: The goal was never to end poverty.

The goal was (and still is) to get as many people as possible dependent on, and voting for, those who promise the most handouts.


Ah yes, another opinion someone thinks is a fact. There are so many.
 
2012-06-26 04:19:14 PM

cchris_39: The goal was never to end poverty.

The goal was (and still is) to get as many people as possible dependent on, and voting for, those who promise the most handouts.


You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

You're right, Obama totally did that. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, more people are on welfare now because of Republican policies that drove them there, not because of anything Obama did other than be black on a Friday night.

So, who or what party is promising the most handouts?
 
2012-06-26 04:21:25 PM

Epoch_Zero: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: I'll stick to the poverty line as defined by the DHHS.

Curious, would someone who bought too much house and couldn't furnish it, living week to week on their several hundred thousand dollar income be considered poor? According to your definition, yes.

2012 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in
family/household Poverty guideline
1 $11,170
2 15,130
3 19,090
4 23,050
5 27,010
6 30,970
7 34,930
8 38,890
For families/households with more than 8 persons,
add $3,960 for each additional person.

No.


So, now you are using the poverty line to define poor. Find a standard man and stick with it. It will help you alot.
 
2012-06-26 04:32:37 PM

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: LibertyHiller: qorkfiend: LibertyHiller: Gee, I wonder what could have happened to derail the Great Society's promise to end poverty; would it rhyme with "Neat Spam Door"?

Alright. What rhymes with "Neat Spam Door"? "Eat the poor"?

Vietnam War.

Okay. That was driving me insane. Veet nam war kinda rhymes with Neat Spam Door. I would say Pee Spit Slam Core rhymes better though. But Vietnam is a really hard word to rhyme. Most of the time.


Nyet ham whore.
 
2012-06-26 04:38:08 PM

TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: Epoch_Zero: TheCruxOfTheBiscuitIsTheApostrophe: I'll stick to the poverty line as defined by the DHHS.

Curious, would someone who bought too much house and couldn't furnish it, living week to week on their several hundred thousand dollar income be considered poor? According to your definition, yes.

2012 Poverty Guidelines for the
48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia
Persons in
family/household Poverty guideline
1 $11,170
2 15,130
3 19,090
4 23,050
5 27,010
6 30,970
7 34,930
8 38,890
For families/households with more than 8 persons,
add $3,960 for each additional person.

No.

So, now you are using the poverty line to define poor. Find a standard man and stick with it. It will help you alot.


You asked a question stating yearly income. I answered showing the relative poverty guidelines. Knowing that someone can be poor but not in poverty, it is reasonable to assume that their income is close to the poverty line, not six figures.
 
2012-06-26 04:38:17 PM

cchris_39: The goal was never to end poverty.

The goal was (and still is) to get as many people as possible dependent on, and voting for, those who promise the most handouts.


Then why do the states who receive the most federal funds vote republican? Did their cunning plan backfire or did you just reguritate talk radio tripe without wanting to actually know the truth.
 
2012-06-26 04:41:22 PM

derpdeederp: Any thoughts on allowing private militaries to pick up the slack for reducing the US military?


Um, don't.

There is no slack to pick up - we have overreached with our current military and what we use them for. If we'd simply use the military for defense of our country and our allies - and not to maintain an intercontinental corporate empire as we are doing now - then we could simply cut the military budget to what is appropriate and use the surplus to do crazy stuff like build adequate infrastructure in our own country.
 
2012-06-26 04:41:38 PM

KhanAidan: I find it fascinating that just on the first page the report says this:

"In total, the United States spends nearly $1 trillion every year to fight poverty."

Then says this:

"Despite nearly $15 trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964,..."

We can't be averaging $1 trillion a year if we've only given 15 over the past 48 years...


Right wing shill sources lie with numbers? Say it ain't so!
 
2012-06-26 04:43:18 PM

CanonicalNerd: cchris_39: The goal was never to end poverty.

The goal was (and still is) to get as many people as possible dependent on, and voting for, those who promise the most handouts.

Then why do the states who receive the most federal funds vote republican? Did their cunning plan backfire or did you just reguritate talk radio tripe without wanting to actually know the truth.


Are you trying to give that whackadoodle a stroke? Pointing out facts like that is dangerous, man!
 
2012-06-26 04:46:03 PM

CanonicalNerd: cchris_39: The goal was never to end poverty.

The goal was (and still is) to get as many people as possible dependent on, and voting for, those who promise the most handouts.

Then why do the states who receive the most federal funds vote republican? Did their cunning plan backfire or did you just reguritate talk radio tripe without wanting to actually know the truth.


Quick - find the chart that shows where those funds go to those states. (Hint - you can't find it) North Dakota, for example, is always high on the list. What they tend to forget to mention is that there are two gigantic military bases, as well as about a third of the U.S. nuclear missiles spread around the state. Plus two major interstates used for trucking, an intermodel rail hub, and, yes, a lot of farms. There's also a national park, schools, etc - all of which are funded in some way by the government. When you have an entire state population of just over half a million people, and federal infrastructure along the lines of what I mentioned above - yeah, it's gonna cost more tax payer dollars in this state than it puts in. That's quite a bit different than comparing it to a welfare queen with 9 kids, 9 baby-daddies, and no job.
 
2012-06-26 04:46:53 PM

cchris_39: The goal was never to end poverty.

The goal was (and still is) to get as many people as possible dependent on, and voting for, those who promise the most handouts.


why would anyone do that? what is the endgame in your insane conspiracy theory?
 
2012-06-26 04:47:16 PM

Giltric: how do you get what you put into it, plus an extra .63 cents out of unemployment? What about food stamps? How do you get what you put into it plus an extra .74 cents out of food stamps?

Why not mandate 100% food stamp participation from the population and grow our economy by 174%?

Something tells me it doesn't work that way...why not?


You get more economic activity out of an economic input than it cost to put in with the magic of the monetary system. See when a poor person buys groceries it employs grocers, truck drivers, farmers, etc. Probably hundreds of people are involved in the food chain from a farm to the grocery store. When a rich person gets a tax cut and uses that money to purchase a bond or stocks then it *can* have a similar affect, but it tends to reduce the velocity of the money on average.. meaning you get less than $1 of net economic growth when a rich person gets a $1 tax cut but you get a greater than $1 net economic benefit when you give a poor person $1 in food stamps.
 
2012-06-26 04:51:21 PM
Can the whackadoodles here explain why it is that the poverty rate has fallen since that time and why it has risen under administrations that tried to disassemble the social safety net and fallen again under administrations that want to preserve it?

No, of course they can't, because facts don't matter, the DERP is all.
 
2012-06-26 04:53:53 PM

Epoch_Zero: You asked a question stating yearly income. I answered showing the relative poverty guidelines. Knowing that someone can be poor but not in poverty, it is reasonable to assume that their income is close to the poverty line, not six figures.


How close? Because the numbers I posted (11% to 15% poor for the last 50 years) are 125% of US defined poverty line. Or is that not close enough to fit your argument?

By the way, what would Epoch's definition of "rich" be?
 
2012-06-26 04:55:03 PM

iaazathot: Can the whackadoodles here explain why it is that the poverty rate has fallen since that time and why it has risen under administrations that tried to disassemble the social safety net and fallen again under administrations that want to preserve it?

No, of course they can't, because facts don't matter, the DERP is all.


Because in aggregate it has remained the same. It's the same reason we should dump all of our social security into the stock market, because in aggregate it makes money, and only catastrophically f*cks your butthole and leaves you broke every once in a little while.
 
2012-06-26 04:59:26 PM

iaazathot: Are you trying to give that whackadoodle a stroke? Pointing out facts like that is dangerous, man!


A system where we take your money and you lose the vote anyway....who exactly is the whackadoodle? lol
 
2012-06-26 05:00:21 PM

cchris_39: iaazathot: Are you trying to give that whackadoodle a stroke? Pointing out facts like that is dangerous, man!

A system where we take your money and you lose the vote anyway....who exactly is the whackadoodle? lol


That would be you.
 
2012-06-26 05:00:28 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: So let's see.....

Unemployment 1965 - ranged between 4.0% and 5.1%

Current unemployment rate - 8.2%

So the poverty rate now is roughly the same as it was in 1965, when economic conditions were significantly better.

This is a failure in what way?


in 1965 the avg wage had MUCH more purchasing power.
 
2012-06-26 05:01:02 PM

Nina_Hartley's_Ass: Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: LibertyHiller: qorkfiend: LibertyHiller: Gee, I wonder what could have happened to derail the Great Society's promise to end poverty; would it rhyme with "Neat Spam Door"?

Alright. What rhymes with "Neat Spam Door"? "Eat the poor"?

Vietnam War.

Okay. That was driving me insane. Veet nam war kinda rhymes with Neat Spam Door. I would say Pee Spit Slam Core rhymes better though. But Vietnam is a really hard word to rhyme. Most of the time.

Nyet ham whore.


Nyet mom whore.
 
2012-06-26 05:01:24 PM

FilmBELOH20:
Quick - find the chart that shows where those funds go to those states. (Hint - you can't find it)


ZZZZZTTTT!!!! http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1451268

FilmBELOH20: What they tend to forget to mention is that there are two gigantic military bases


DOUBLE ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZTTTT!!!!

"I begin by disentangling the effects of federal spending on the 2000 election-the election that started the controversy-by showing that social spending not defense spending is related to Republican vote share. " (from source above, pg 3)
 
2012-06-26 05:04:13 PM

cchris_39: iaazathot: Are you trying to give that whackadoodle a stroke? Pointing out facts like that is dangerous, man!

A system where we take your money and you lose the vote anyway....who exactly is the whackadoodle? lol


I don't get it.
 
2012-06-26 05:04:47 PM

FilmBELOH20: CanonicalNerd: cchris_39: The goal was never to end poverty.

The goal was (and still is) to get as many people as possible dependent on, and voting for, those who promise the most handouts.

Then why do the states who receive the most federal funds vote republican? Did their cunning plan backfire or did you just reguritate talk radio tripe without wanting to actually know the truth.

Quick - find the chart that shows where those funds go to those states. (Hint - you can't find it) North Dakota, for example, is always high on the list. What they tend to forget to mention is that there are two gigantic military bases, as well as about a third of the U.S. nuclear missiles spread around the state. Plus two major interstates used for trucking, an intermodel rail hub, and, yes, a lot of farms. There's also a national park, schools, etc - all of which are funded in some way by the government. When you have an entire state population of just over half a million people, and federal infrastructure along the lines of what I mentioned above - yeah, it's gonna cost more tax payer dollars in this state than it puts in. That's quite a bit different than comparing it to a welfare queen with 9 kids, 9 baby-daddies, and no job.


Then why is New York - which has many many more people and much and more infrastructure than North Dakota, not up there with Missisippi and North Dakota?

farm3.static.flickr.com
A 2005 list - but it can't be that different in 2012.
 
2012-06-26 05:09:38 PM

Job Creator: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x444]

Funny how the Great Society reforms resulted in the poverty rate plunging, it leveled off in 1979-1980, then rose dramatically with every Republican administration. Until 1993 or so, when it plunged during the Clinton administration.

Also, too I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for "trillions of dollars" spent on the "War on Poverty." Seems like that figure comes from the Office of Pulling it Out of Your Arse.


catallaxyfiles.com
 
2012-06-26 05:09:58 PM
Why "CNS" because the CSA Confederate States of America was a tarnished brand.
 
2012-06-26 05:10:23 PM

Epoch_Zero: A 2005 list - but it can't be that different in 2012.


Link
 
2012-06-26 05:12:09 PM

jigger: Job Creator: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x444]

Funny how the Great Society reforms resulted in the poverty rate plunging, it leveled off in 1979-1980, then rose dramatically with every Republican administration. Until 1993 or so, when it plunged during the Clinton administration.

Also, too I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for "trillions of dollars" spent on the "War on Poverty." Seems like that figure comes from the Office of Pulling it Out of Your Arse.

[catallaxyfiles.com image 570x387]


No no - look - it says "Source: Census" right there! It's official.
 
2012-06-26 05:14:31 PM
"you just hate poor people and want them to STARVE!"

Yes, because if one is against GOVERNMENT doing a thing, then one must be against that thing altogether.

don't like the dept of education? You hate education and want people to be stupid.

don't like welfare checks? You hate poor people and want them to DIE!

how is that an argument?
 
2012-06-26 05:14:53 PM

Epoch_Zero: jigger: Job Creator: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x444]

Funny how the Great Society reforms resulted in the poverty rate plunging, it leveled off in 1979-1980, then rose dramatically with every Republican administration. Until 1993 or so, when it plunged during the Clinton administration.

Also, too I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for "trillions of dollars" spent on the "War on Poverty." Seems like that figure comes from the Office of Pulling it Out of Your Arse.

[catallaxyfiles.com image 570x387]

No no - look - it says "Source: Census" right there! It's official.


wut?
 
2012-06-26 05:16:21 PM

jigger: Also, too I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for "trillions of dollars" spent on the "War on Poverty." Seems like that figure comes from the Office of Pulling it Out of Your Arse.


Here is the source article, and its cited pretty well.

One thing I immediately noticed is that about 1/3 of it is Medicaid. Medicaid isn't exactly handing out money to more people. More like handing out money to poor people's doctors (and pharma and hoverround, etc).
 
2012-06-26 05:17:09 PM
Dammit, cut&paste this:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/PA694.pdf
 
2012-06-26 05:19:15 PM

CanonicalNerd: jigger: Also, too I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for "trillions of dollars" spent on the "War on Poverty." Seems like that figure comes from the Office of Pulling it Out of Your Arse.

Here is the source article, and its cited pretty well.

One thing I immediately noticed is that about 1/3 of it is Medicaid. Medicaid isn't exactly handing out money to more people. More like handing out money to poor people's doctors (and pharma and hoverround, etc).


Yeah, maybe you aren't familiar with the way fark handles quotes.
 
2012-06-26 05:23:47 PM

jigger: Yeah, maybe you aren't familiar with the way fark handles quotes.


Whoops. Sorry.
 
2012-06-26 05:23:50 PM
I'm I the only one noticing there are people in this thread arguing both the war on poverty has been a dismal failure AND we have the richest poor people in the world?
 
2012-06-26 05:25:09 PM

Aarontology: But the really ironic thing, and the funniest in my opinion, is that the teabaggers and republicans are complaining that there isn't enough socialism and redistribution of wealth in the Farm Bill in regards to "help" for farmers.


Heh.
 
2012-06-26 05:26:26 PM

Johnnyknox: "you just hate poor people and want them to STARVE!"

Yes, because if one is against GOVERNMENT doing a thing, then one must be against that thing altogether.

don't like the dept of education? You hate education and want people to be stupid.

don't like welfare checks? You hate poor people and want them to DIE!

how is that an argument?


When they point at someone's education as a bad thing. Or say poor people aren't poor.
 
2012-06-26 05:28:16 PM

downpaymentblues: I'm I the only one noticing there are people in this thread arguing both the war on poverty has been a dismal failure AND we have the richest poor people in the world?


Nope!
 
2012-06-26 05:37:19 PM

Giltric: Shvetz: You know what stimulates the economy?

[i.imgur.com image 635x389]



How much would 100% employment put back into the economy?

how do you get what you put into it, plus an extra .63 cents out of unemployment? What about food stamps? How do you get what you put into it plus an extra .74 cents out of food stamps?

Why not mandate 100% food stamp participation from the population and grow our economy by 174%?

Something tells me it doesn't work that way...why not?


Because you have to back up a step and realize that only about 30 cents of every tax dollar taken in for entitlement spending actually makes it to the recipient; the rest gets gobbled up by the machinery of government itself. So, multplying .3 by 1.8, you arrive at 54 cents worth of good. In other words, putting money into entitlement programs basically cuts it almost exactly in half.

This is why the leftists calling me disingenuous doesn't bother me. Not a one of them will acknowledge what I just said, and yet it is absolutely true.

All this being said, I'm still in favor of having some sort of social safety net; the graphic posted above showing the decline in poverty percentage among senior citizens shows one reason why. However, we simply have to do something to get perfectly healthy and capable people off the damn dole.

Both parties were responsible for pulling trillions of dollars out of the economy and giving it to the bankers, right before a major recession hit. (The first idiot to add "so vote Republican!" to that statement gets a strawman award.) Hard to have a robust economy when crap like that happens.
 
2012-06-26 05:38:24 PM

CanonicalNerd: Johnnyknox: "you just hate poor people and want them to STARVE!"

Yes, because if one is against GOVERNMENT doing a thing, then one must be against that thing altogether.

don't like the dept of education? You hate education and want people to be stupid.

don't like welfare checks? You hate poor people and want them to DIE!

how is that an argument?

When they point at someone's education as a bad thing. Or say poor people aren't poor.


If you propose dismantling public education, you don't want most people to get an education, except by charity and extreme good fortune. So yeah - you want people stupid, because you don't want most of them educated.

If you propose dismantling the social safety net, you think the suffering of people in poverty should not be alleviated, except by charity and extreme good fortune. So yeah - you want them to suffer, because help will not be provided for most of them.
 
2012-06-26 05:39:04 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Because you have to back up a step and realize that only about 30 cents of every tax dollar taken in for entitlement spending actually makes it to the recipient; the rest gets gobbled up by the machinery of government itself. So, multplying .3 by 1.8, you arrive at 54 cents worth of good. In other words, putting money into entitlement programs basically cuts it almost exactly in half.

This is why the leftists calling me disingenuous doesn't bother me. Not a one of them will acknowledge what I just said, and yet it is absolutely true.


Any citations for your "absolutely true" factoid?
 
2012-06-26 05:41:27 PM
Epoch_Zero:


That chart more or less reflects population density.
 
2012-06-26 05:42:00 PM

mat catastrophe: My reaction to the right-wing incorrectly labeling the center-right Democrats as "socialists" is to actually talk like a "communist".

It's the only way. If they can stretch the conversation that far to the right so that moderate liberal policies seem leftist, then you have to show them what leftism really means.


Hmmmmmm...
 
2012-06-26 05:44:19 PM

cchris_39: Epoch_Zero:


That chart more or less reflects population density.


Actually, you've yet to prove even the first contention you made upon posting in here today.

You have no proof that the Democratic Party's "goal was (and still is) to get as many people as possible dependent on, and voting for, those who promise the most handouts."

You need to retract this statement if you feel it is more than just your opinion.
 
2012-06-26 05:49:40 PM
discouraging out-of-wedlock births

The Cato Institute.
 
2012-06-26 05:50:19 PM

Job Creator:

1.bp.blogspot.com

Funny how the Great Society reforms resulted in the poverty rate plunging, it leveled off in 1979-1980, then rose dramatically with every Republican administration. Until 1993 or so, when it plunged during the Clinton administration.

Also, too I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for "trillions of dollars" spent on the "War on Poverty." Seems like that figure comes from the Office of Pulling it Out of Your Arse.


Can you not read a graph? By the time the Great Society was under way, the levels had already fallen significantly. The first half of that huge slope was during JFK, who cut the top marginal tax rates during his adminstration. And the shaded area represents the end of the CARTER administration and the beginning of the Reagan administration.
 
2012-06-26 05:50:24 PM

qorkfiend: SouthernFriedYankee: Because you have to back up a step and realize that only about 30 cents of every tax dollar taken in for entitlement spending actually makes it to the recipient; the rest gets gobbled up by the machinery of government itself. So, multplying .3 by 1.8, you arrive at 54 cents worth of good. In other words, putting money into entitlement programs basically cuts it almost exactly in half.

This is why the leftists calling me disingenuous doesn't bother me. Not a one of them will acknowledge what I just said, and yet it is absolutely true.

Any citations for your "absolutely true" factoid?


I will guess "no", because it's false; over 90 cents of every dollar for entitlements goes to beneficiaries.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-26 05:51:11 PM
just kick all the white people off of welfare
 
2012-06-26 06:02:17 PM

Epoch_Zero: FilmBELOH20: CanonicalNerd: cchris_39: The goal was never to end poverty.

The goal was (and still is) to get as many people as possible dependent on, and voting for, those who promise the most handouts.

Then why do the states who receive the most federal funds vote republican? Did their cunning plan backfire or did you just reguritate talk radio tripe without wanting to actually know the truth.

Quick - find the chart that shows where those funds go to those states. (Hint - you can't find it) North Dakota, for example, is always high on the list. What they tend to forget to mention is that there are two gigantic military bases, as well as about a third of the U.S. nuclear missiles spread around the state. Plus two major interstates used for trucking, an intermodel rail hub, and, yes, a lot of farms. There's also a national park, schools, etc - all of which are funded in some way by the government. When you have an entire state population of just over half a million people, and federal infrastructure along the lines of what I mentioned above - yeah, it's gonna cost more tax payer dollars in this state than it puts in. That's quite a bit different than comparing it to a welfare queen with 9 kids, 9 baby-daddies, and no job.

Then why is New York - which has many many more people and much and more infrastructure than North Dakota, not up there with Missisippi and North Dakota?

[farm3.static.flickr.com image 477x626]
A 2005 list - but it can't be that different in 2012.


Um, because math? If 20,000,000 people put in $1000 each in one area, and 500,000 people put in the same amount in another area, the figures are going to obviously skew that way regardless of how much federal spending is done there. Lots of the infrastructure on both places are local dollars, not federal. Now look at the difference between individuals on public assistance in both areas, as opposed to the "state" getting government money. Percentage wise, it seems to be higher in "blue" states than "red", but nobody wants to point that graph out.

Link
 
2012-06-26 06:07:24 PM
Conservative have been smart to morph the meaning of aid to the needy into one word, "Entitlement".
What's that all about? Entitlements in my mind aren't material things, they are liberty, justice and freedom. We are all entitled to those things. It's a marketing ploy to get people to start looking at safety nets as "nice to haves" and insinuating that the people that need it think they are "entitled" to what they like to call "hand outs".

Stigmatize an idea as something else to cast a shadow over it. Sound familiar?

Conservatives have this knee jerk reaction to throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead of doing the work to cut waste out of these programs without dismantling them, they take the easy way out and call it freedom and capitalism. Anybody against that must be a Socialist Marxist traitor.

Some of us see right through all of the Romney,s in the world.
We see your greed dressed up in your moral high ground.

I think it's great to be able to go out and make something of yourself and be successful and make a ton of money. But I ask, how far do the scales need to be tipped before before great wealth surpasses the progress of an enlightened society?

Is it really Just and the true American Way to turn our backs on the needy and suck the middle class dry while the uber wealthy sit back and do nothing but fight to continue the cycle?

I just don't offing get it.
 
2012-06-26 06:07:33 PM

cchris_39: Epoch_Zero:


That chart more or less reflects population density.


Your posts more or less reflect your mental density.
 
2012-06-26 06:10:42 PM
New International Version (©1984)
The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me.
 
2012-06-26 06:11:20 PM

derpdeederp: Any thoughts on allowing private militaries to pick up the slack for reducing the US military?


From what I understand, that isn't working out too well. The contractors are mostly unscrupulous opportunists - for all the biatching about soldiers, most soldiers actually have princples and are honorable folks.

I think closing or dramatically scaling back the military bases all over the world, and no longer paying tons of money every year to defend countries that turn around and wage trade war on us via currency manipulation, sounds like a better idea.
 
2012-06-26 06:12:31 PM

James!: The War on Poverty is to Afganistan as the War on Drugs is to Iraq.


+ eleventy. And a cookie.
 
2012-06-26 06:13:48 PM
We have everything we need, on paper, in this country to completely eliminate poverty through legislation but two things would have to change. First, the wealthy would have to give up the idea that they can have a fleet of million dollar cars, private yachts, and a $100 million house for every day of the week. Second, the middle class has to give up the idea that the poor "don't deserve it". Change those two things and you can have your relative utopia. Personally, I'm not holding my breath given the culture we live in.

/At the end of the day, poverty exists because we want it too. Simple as that.
 
2012-06-26 06:15:29 PM

Giltric: Well the beauty of that is that in the United States you can go from living in your car to filthy rich overnight.

Even people with a popular website can find themselves worth 20 billion dollars after their company goes public.

When you compare a large sample size like the 99% and a small sample size like the top 1% any gains by that top 1% is going to skew the stats.



Where does America rank in upwards mobility? You might be surprised.
 
2012-06-26 06:16:39 PM
I actually want the GOP to win the Presidency and both houses. I want them to eliminate all programs and to repeal all laws the Democratic party ever passed.

I will be the first person to laugh loudly when the world falls apart and millions of people die overnight. I will point and laugh and I will say that I told you so. I will be the first person to convict in the public square all conservative ideology and all people who claim to own it. I'm betting that instead of conscientious persons, I will instead face a wall of crickets.

I will drag you all to prison, and you will die there.
 
2012-06-26 06:16:56 PM

smeegle: Conservative have been smart to morph the meaning of aid to the needy into one word, "Entitlement".
What's that all about? Entitlements in my mind aren't material things, they are liberty, justice and freedom. We are all entitled to those things. It's a marketing ploy to get people to start looking at safety nets as "nice to haves" and insinuating that the people that need it think they are "entitled" to what they like to call "hand outs".

Stigmatize an idea as something else to cast a shadow over it. Sound familiar?

Conservatives have this knee jerk reaction to throw the baby out with the bath water. Instead of doing the work to cut waste out of these programs without dismantling them, they take the easy way out and call it freedom and capitalism. Anybody against that must be a Socialist Marxist traitor.

Some of us see right through all of the Romney,s in the world.
We see your greed dressed up in your moral high ground.

I think it's great to be able to go out and make something of yourself and be successful and make a ton of money. But I ask, how far do the scales need to be tipped before before great wealth surpasses the progress of an enlightened society?

Is it really Just and the true American Way to turn our backs on the needy and suck the middle class dry while the uber wealthy sit back and do nothing but fight to continue the cycle?

I just don't offing get it.


icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-26 06:17:08 PM

cchris_39: The goal was never to end poverty.

The goal was (and still is) to get as many people as possible dependent on, and voting for, those who promise the most handouts.


Good luck, convincing the leftist folk here of this. But it's true, and it works so well that the GOP does it now too. The only time the GOP wants smaller government is when Democrats are in power, as we saw from 2001 - 2009. I believe the term us fiscally-minded people used was "spending like drunken sailors." But that might have been an insult to drunken sailors...
 
2012-06-26 06:18:43 PM

Fail in Human Form: At the end of the day, poverty exists because we want it too. Simple as that.


Agreed an in addition Capitalism as we know it would look different.
Personally, I think that there is no real pure form of any system. The mix varies with different degrees of socialist ideas thrown in. Socialism and Communism in their pure form, collapse.
I see todays GOP striving for pure Capitalism. I don't see that as a good idea.
 
2012-06-26 06:18:47 PM

coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.


Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.
 
2012-06-26 06:21:06 PM

derpdeederp: I believe the concept is to give the military money so we dont get attacked.



So America needs to keep raising military spending and nobody will attack? Interesting. Someone tell Bin Laden.
 
2012-06-26 06:21:14 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.


Actually, the least you could do is admit it happened during the Clinton Presidency and that he signed off on it.
 
2012-06-26 06:21:45 PM
jigger

Whatever, nice pussy tho.
 
2012-06-26 06:22:24 PM

James!: The War on Poverty is to Afganistan as the War on Drugs is to Iraq.


So the war on drugs is over and the war on poverty will never end?
 
2012-06-26 06:24:16 PM

FilmBELOH20: Quick - find the chart that shows where those funds go to those states. (Hint - you can't find it) North Dakota, for example, is always high on the list. What they tend to forget to mention is that there are two gigantic military bases, as well as about a third of the U.S. nuclear missiles spread around the state. Plus two major interstates used for trucking, an intermodel rail hub, and, yes, a lot of farms. There's also a national park, schools, etc - all of which are funded in some way by the government. When you have an entire state population of just over half a million people, and federal infrastructure along the lines of what I mentioned above - yeah, it's gonna cost more tax payer dollars in this state than it puts in. That's quite a bit different than comparing it to a welfare queen with 9 kids, 9 baby-daddies, and no job.



So the only thing between you being that welfare queen with 9 kids, 9 baby-daddies, and no job, is massive government spending on your state. At least you're honest you rely on the government even more than someone receiving a few hundred dollars a month.

/I do like the racist shot you took at welfare queens
 
2012-06-26 06:26:57 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: And the shaded area represents the end of the CARTER administration and the beginning of the Reagan administration.



No, the shades show a recession, idiot.
 
2012-06-26 06:27:26 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: mat catastrophe: My reaction to the right-wing incorrectly labeling the center-right Democrats as "socialists" is to actually talk like a "communist".

It's the only way. If they can stretch the conversation that far to the right so that moderate liberal policies seem leftist, then you have to show them what leftism really means.

Hmmmmmm...


Yes, that was a touching start but it left untouched the actual system by which those leeches "make" their money.
 
2012-06-26 06:31:18 PM

Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Welfare is supposed to eliminate poverty? I thought it was mainly used to prevent people from starving to death.

One of the stated objectives of The Great Society was the elimination of poverty.


Before Social Security, almost half of elderly Americans had income below the poverty line. Today, only about ten percent of the elderly have incomes below the poverty line.

It appears to be working.
 
2012-06-26 06:31:34 PM

qorkfiend: SouthernFriedYankee: Because you have to back up a step and realize that only about 30 cents of every tax dollar taken in for entitlement spending actually makes it to the recipient; the rest gets gobbled up by the machinery of government itself. So, multplying .3 by 1.8, you arrive at 54 cents worth of good. In other words, putting money into entitlement programs basically cuts it almost exactly in half.

This is why the leftists calling me disingenuous doesn't bother me. Not a one of them will acknowledge what I just said, and yet it is absolutely true.

Any citations for your "absolutely true" factoid?


Link
 
2012-06-26 06:32:21 PM

bulldg4life: I would assume we would need to develop better education programs to prepare people for the real world instead of driving student loans and higher education to levels that only the upper middle-class can survive. We probably need to stop shipping low-level jobs overseas to give the blue collar worker opportunities that just aren't there anymore. And, we'll need to reform the health care system to prevent crushing debt that can destroy families and cripple growth.

Or, I guess, we get rid of welfare and hope for the best.


But this is AMERICA! We must treat welfare programs as we do our economy, thus if there is no direct ROI, then fark those poor bastards.
 
2012-06-26 06:32:40 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.


TANF/AFDC recipients FY 2000: 742,263 (End of Clinton Administration)

TANF recipients, FY 2007: 3,960,907 (End of Bush Administration)

Source: US Dept of Health & Human Services Link

Welfare was reformed under Clinton, and less people were on it.
 
2012-06-26 06:32:59 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Can you not read a graph? By the time the Great Society was under way, the levels had already fallen significantly. The first half of that huge slope was during JFK, who cut the top marginal tax rates during his adminstration. And the shaded area represents the end of the CARTER administration and the beginning of the Reagan administration.


Kennedy's tax cuts were mostly demand side:

Link
 
2012-06-26 06:36:12 PM

smeegle: Fail in Human Form: At the end of the day, poverty exists because we want it too. Simple as that.

Agreed an in addition Capitalism as we know it would look different.
Personally, I think that there is no real pure form of any system. The mix varies with different degrees of socialist ideas thrown in. Socialism and Communism in their pure form, collapse.
I see todays GOP striving for pure Capitalism. I don't see that as a good idea.


Me either.
 
2012-06-26 06:38:15 PM

whidbey: SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.

Actually, the least you could do is admit it happened during the Clinton Presidency and that he signed off on it.


I do, and he did. But he vetoed it twice first, and only signed it after his advisors told him he wouldn't get re-elected unless he did so.
 
2012-06-26 06:40:18 PM

intelligent comment below: SouthernFriedYankee: And the shaded area represents the end of the CARTER administration and the beginning of the Reagan administration.


No, the shades show a recession, idiot.


MY. POINT.

One started under Carter, the other under HW Bush. "B-b-b-but Reagan!!"
 
2012-06-26 06:40:43 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: qorkfiend: SouthernFriedYankee: Because you have to back up a step and realize that only about 30 cents of every tax dollar taken in for entitlement spending actually makes it to the recipient; the rest gets gobbled up by the machinery of government itself. So, multplying .3 by 1.8, you arrive at 54 cents worth of good. In other words, putting money into entitlement programs basically cuts it almost exactly in half.

This is why the leftists calling me disingenuous doesn't bother me. Not a one of them will acknowledge what I just said, and yet it is absolutely true.

Any citations for your "absolutely true" factoid?

Link

http://libertariananswers.com/is-private-charity-more-efficient-than- g overnment-welfare/


Not sure if serious
 
2012-06-26 06:41:44 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: The first half of that huge slope was during JFK, who cut the top marginal tax rates during his adminstration.


Also noteworthy:

[Kennedy] did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

Link

So I'm glad we agree on Kennedynomics as a model for the nation. Demand side tax cuts, and a top marginal rate of 70% sounds about right to me.
 
2012-06-26 06:41:47 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: intelligent comment below: SouthernFriedYankee: And the shaded area represents the end of the CARTER administration and the beginning of the Reagan administration.


No, the shades show a recession, idiot.

MY. POINT.

One started under Carter, the other under HW Bush. "B-b-b-but Reagan!!"


No, your point was a Democrat causing the drop and the great society not working.

When the economy is good and a Democrat is in office, poverty numbers drop. Imagine that
 
2012-06-26 06:49:01 PM

Gyrfalcon: SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.

TANF/AFDC recipients FY 2000: 742,263 (End of Clinton Administration)

TANF recipients, FY 2007: 3,960,907 (End of Bush Administration)

Source: US Dept of Health & Human Services Link

Welfare was reformed under Clinton, and less people were on it.


4th question down.

Funny, how the left always wants to credit Clinton for welfare reform, and claim that the GOP-led Congress had nothing to do with it. Clinton signed it, but not because he wanted to do so:

Mr. Clinton also vetoed reform twice before finally signing it in 1996 after his political guru Dick Morris told him it was the one issue that could cost him re-election.
 
2012-06-26 06:50:17 PM
There will always be poverty, it will just vary in degrees.
With human nature comes greed and sloth.
It's what's in between that we can affect a better outcome.
 
2012-06-26 06:52:09 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Gyrfalcon: SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.

TANF/AFDC recipients FY 2000: 742,263 (End of Clinton Administration)

TANF recipients, FY 2007: 3,960,907 (End of Bush Administration)

Source: US Dept of Health & Human Services Link

Welfare was reformed under Clinton, and less people were on it.

4th question down.

Funny, how the left always wants to credit Clinton for welfare reform, and claim that the GOP-led Congress had nothing to do with it. Clinton signed it, but not because he wanted to do so:

Mr. Clinton also vetoed reform twice before finally signing it in 1996 after his political guru Dick Morris told him it was the one issue that could cost him re-election.


Newsbusters? Libertariananswers.com?

Citing nonsense doesn't make your nonsense valid.

Where do you think you are? Reddit?
 
2012-06-26 06:53:42 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Gyrfalcon: SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.

TANF/AFDC recipients FY 2000: 742,263 (End of Clinton Administration)

TANF recipients, FY 2007: 3,960,907 (End of Bush Administration)

Source: US Dept of Health & Human Services Link

Welfare was reformed under Clinton, and less people were on it.

4th question down.

Funny, how the left always wants to credit Clinton for welfare reform, and claim that the GOP-led Congress had nothing to do with it. Clinton signed it, but not because he wanted to do so:

Mr. Clinton also vetoed reform twice before finally signing it in 1996 after his political guru Dick Morris told him it was the one issue that could cost him re-election.


Clinton campaigned in 1992 on welfare reform.

"Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to 'end welfare as we have come to know it.'[2]"

Link

Many people agree that "facts" increase the persuasive appeal of an argument, while "bullsh*t pulled out of your cavernous asshole" decreases it.
 
2012-06-26 06:56:25 PM

bugontherug: SouthernFriedYankee: The first half of that huge slope was during JFK, who cut the top marginal tax rates during his adminstration.

Also noteworthy:

[Kennedy] did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

Link

So I'm glad we agree on Kennedynomics as a model for the nation. Demand side tax cuts, and a top marginal rate of 70% sounds about right to me.


If we make that 70% on folks who make over $1 mil, then yeah, maybe. Create another bracket to be the top bracket. That high of a rate on anyone making less than about $750 - $1mm/year is unreasonable. Those are the folks who own the small businesses (the upper middle class). The middle class are the folks who work for those businesses.

Right now, the middle and upper middle classes carry the whole damn country on their backs. The ultra wealthy skate out of the burden, percentage-wise, on top of having the biggest incomes in absolute dollars. And obviously the poor don't have any money by definition, so they can't be taxed.
 
2012-06-26 06:59:38 PM

casual disregard: I actually want the GOP to win the Presidency and both houses. I want them to eliminate all programs and to repeal all laws the Democratic party ever passed.

I will be the first person to laugh loudly when the world falls apart and millions of people die overnight. I will point and laugh and I will say that I told you so. I will be the first person to convict in the public square all conservative ideology and all people who claim to own it. I'm betting that instead of conscientious persons, I will instead face a wall of crickets.

I will drag you all to prison, and you will die there.


i must say, even though i'm a conservative, i like the cut of your jib.
 
2012-06-26 07:00:44 PM
Poverty is relative. If you can afford three hots and a roof over your head you're not poor.
 
2012-06-26 07:03:40 PM

Shaggy_C: Poverty is relative. If you can afford three hots and a roof over your head you're not poor.


Oh, don't start.
 
2012-06-26 07:04:34 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: If we make that 70% on folks who make over $1 mil, then yeah, maybe. Create another bracket to be the top bracket. That high of a rate on anyone making less than about $750 - $1mm/year is unreasonable. Those are the folks who own the small businesses (the upper middle class).


In my view, the top bracket should be somewhere below $750k/year. But I'm not interested in arguing that point. I am interesting in arguing the notion that anyone who pulls in $750k/year in personal income is "middle class" in any way whatsoever.

But I am pleasantly surprised to hear someone on the right agree to higher marginal tax rates. Kudos.
 
2012-06-26 07:05:37 PM

Shaggy_C: Poverty is relative. If you can afford three hots and a roof over your head you're not poor.


So it's okay if your teeth fall out and you croak from shiyat that was curable but there was no dough available to live?
Interesting world view you have there Shags.
 
2012-06-26 07:06:51 PM
Yes, but think of all the Vietnamese and Iraqis we've killed in that time frame, never mind how many of our own people we've sent off to slaughter for someone's idea of a social studies project. That was money well spent and will pay dividends until the end of time.

That is what makes me proud to be an American.

Hungry poor people? F*ck them. They aren't Real Americans.
 
2012-06-26 07:09:36 PM

bugontherug: I am interesting in arguing the notion that anyone who pulls in $750k/year in personal income is "middle class" in any way whatsoever.


750K is or isn't middle class? I must be stupid because I couldn't tell by your sentence.
It's a discussion worth having. Where is the class line?
We know the poverty line (19K?) but where is the actual divide betwixt the other "classes"?
 
2012-06-26 07:11:40 PM

bugontherug: SouthernFriedYankee: Gyrfalcon: SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi:

"Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to 'end welfare as we have come to know it.'[2]"


Stop that immediately!
 
2012-06-26 07:12:38 PM

Tor_Eckman: Newsbusters? Libertariananswers.com?

Citing nonsense doesn't make your nonsense valid.


Clinton

From the PDF linked to on that Libertarian answers page:
Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.

Better?
 
2012-06-26 07:14:25 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: Newsbusters? Libertariananswers.com?

Citing nonsense doesn't make your nonsense valid.

Clinton

From the PDF linked to on that Libertarian answers page:
Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.
Better?



Sounds legit
 
2012-06-26 07:15:04 PM
Three words.

GAMING. THE. SYSTEM.

If you're doing the gaming, you've made out like bandits.

If you're being gamed, you've been conned and didn't even know it. And that's the best kind of a con.
 
2012-06-26 07:15:18 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: Newsbusters? Libertariananswers.com?

Citing nonsense doesn't make your nonsense valid.

Clinton

From the PDF linked to on that Libertarian answers page:
Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.
Better?


Mises? Oy vey.
 
2012-06-26 07:16:45 PM

bugontherug: "Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to 'end welfare as we have come to know it.'[2]"

Link

Many people agree that "facts" increase the persuasive appeal of an argument, while "bullsh*t pulled out of your cavernous asshole" decreases it.


I can cite pbs.org in this issue; you cite Wikipedia, then you insult me.

Nice.
 
2012-06-26 07:17:00 PM

Boudica's War Tampon: GAMING. THE. SYSTEM.


You do have a point. Both ends of the spectrum have gamers. Guess which ones ain't so bright?
 
2012-06-26 07:18:06 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: bugontherug: "Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to 'end welfare as we have come to know it.'[2]"

Link

Many people agree that "facts" increase the persuasive appeal of an argument, while "bullsh*t pulled out of your cavernous asshole" decreases it.

I can cite pbs.org in this issue; you cite Wikipedia, then you insult me.

Nice.


You are claiming he didn't want Welfare Reform. Your own link shows they were only holding out for a better plan.
 
2012-06-26 07:19:24 PM

colon_pow: casual disregard: I actually want the GOP to win the Presidency and both houses. I want them to eliminate all programs and to repeal all laws the Democratic party ever passed.

I will be the first person to laugh loudly when the world falls apart and millions of people die overnight. I will point and laugh and I will say that I told you so. I will be the first person to convict in the public square all conservative ideology and all people who claim to own it. I'm betting that instead of conscientious persons, I will instead face a wall of crickets.

I will drag you all to prison, and you will die there.

i must say, even though i'm a conservative, i like the cut of your jib.


It's a thirteen-step program. For support, you can ask Weaver95 and Hubiestubart for aid. Ghastly fills in as our resident "Weird Canadian" cousin as required.

You just passed step one. Long road ahead of you.
 
2012-06-26 07:24:50 PM

smeegle: bugontherug: I am interesting in arguing the notion that anyone who pulls in $750k/year in personal income is "middle class" in any way whatsoever.

750K is or isn't middle class? I must be stupid because I couldn't tell by your sentence.
It's a discussion worth having. Where is the class line?
We know the poverty line (19K?) but where is the actual divide betwixt the other "classes"?


I fully admit I'm being a bit arbitrary here, but this is Fark and I see a lot of that from all sides. Anyway, I think that the cutoff line between the upper middle class and the actual upper class is somewhere between $750K and $1mm/year. When you take into account the total tax burden AND the rate of inflation, that sounds about right.
 
2012-06-26 07:28:17 PM

Sabyen91: You are claiming he didn't want Welfare Reform. Your own link shows they were only holding out for a better plan.


I expect he'd have held out forever, or until the plan had about as much reform in it as a pile of dirt, if re-election wasn't an issue. I went through my 20s in the 1990s, so I remember it very well.
 
2012-06-26 07:33:40 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: Newsbusters? Libertariananswers.com?

Citing nonsense doesn't make your nonsense valid.

Clinton

From the PDF linked to on that Libertarian answers page:
Using government data, Robert L. Woodson (1989, p. 63) calculated that, on average, 70 cents of each dollar budgeted for government assistance goes not to the poor, but to the members of the welfare bureaucracy and others serving the poor. Michael Tanner (1996, p. 136 n. 18) cites regional studies supporting this 70/30 split.
Better?


No. That PDF is full of suppositions and convoluted math/logic to support a bullshiat theory.

It's crap. Meanwhile, the study cited upthread by the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities using actual hard numbers completely debunks that bogus libertarian POS you tried to pass off as proof of your ridiculous assertion.

Again, citing bullshiat does not help your case. You might be able to sell steaming piles like that over at Yahoo, but not here.
 
2012-06-26 07:34:54 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Sabyen91: You are claiming he didn't want Welfare Reform. Your own link shows they were only holding out for a better plan.

I expect he'd have held out forever, or until the plan had about as much reform in it as a pile of dirt, if re-election wasn't an issue. I went through my 20s in the 1990s, so I remember it very well.


So...you got nothin'.
 
2012-06-26 07:39:08 PM
I am upper middle class probably. Definitely not lower class and definitely not poor.

I don't own a refrigerator or a washer or dryer.

I live in an apartment that has these things. I could buy them, but I am a single father putting one kid through college with no help from anyone.

Where does Fox News feel I belong?
 
2012-06-26 07:39:39 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: whidbey: SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.

Actually, the least you could do is admit it happened during the Clinton Presidency and that he signed off on it.

I do, and he did. But he vetoed it twice first, and only signed it after his advisors told him he wouldn't get re-elected unless he did so.


Well that was good of him, but it doesn't really negate the claim that was made.
 
2012-06-26 07:42:59 PM

Tor_Eckman: ...non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities...


Non-partisan my ass, bub.

And since you guys use Wikipedia as a source, I will too: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Donors

As I said, non-partisan, my ass.
 
2012-06-26 07:44:00 PM

whidbey: SouthernFriedYankee: whidbey: SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: You're right, Clinton totally did that back in his day. (checks facts) Oh, that's right, welfare was reformed and less people were on it.

Contract With America, anyone? If you're going to claim to check facts, checking real ones is a big plus.

Actually, the least you could do is admit it happened during the Clinton Presidency and that he signed off on it.

I do, and he did. But he vetoed it twice first, and only signed it after his advisors told him he wouldn't get re-elected unless he did so.

Well that was good of him, but it doesn't really negate the claim that was made.


Yes, but he found a Newsbusters article quoting that paragon of truth Dick Morris.

So he's got that going for him.
 
2012-06-26 07:46:50 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: ...non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities...

Non-partisan my ass, bub.

And since you guys use Wikipedia as a source, I will too: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Donors

As I said, non-partisan, my ass.


So that makes the bullcrap you were trying to pass from the Von Mieses Institute and NewsBusters true?
 
2012-06-26 07:49:35 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: ...non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities...

Non-partisan my ass, bub.

And since you guys use Wikipedia as a source, I will too: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Donors

As I said, non-partisan, my ass.


Sorry, Mr. cite-tard. Neither the Mcardle opinion piece nor the Wiki you cited disproves that the CBPP is non-partisan. Over and above that though, neither disproves the findings of the study in question, which is the real point. Or was that just a really bad attempt at deflection?

You really suck at this.
 
2012-06-26 07:51:21 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: bugontherug: "Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to 'end welfare as we have come to know it.'[2]"

Link

Many people agree that "facts" increase the persuasive appeal of an argument, while "bullsh*t pulled out of your cavernous asshole" decreases it.

I can cite pbs.org in this issue; you cite Wikipedia, then you insult me.

Nice.


The Wikipedia entry links to Bill Clinton talking about welfare reform in 1991. It was a major part of his 1992 campaign. This response here, to the objective fact of reality which contradicts your assertion hat Bill Clinton didn't want welfare reform, is why you deserved to be insulted. Anger at reality is ingrained in the morally defective conservative character. Hence, rejection of science, facts, etc.
 
2012-06-26 07:52:16 PM

bugontherug: SouthernFriedYankee: bugontherug: "Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to 'end welfare as we have come to know it.'[2]"

Link

Many people agree that "facts" increase the persuasive appeal of an argument, while "bullsh*t pulled out of your cavernous asshole" decreases it.

I can cite pbs.org in this issue; you cite Wikipedia, then you insult me.

Nice.

The Wikipedia entry links to Bill Clinton talking about welfare reform in 1991. It was a major part of his 1992 campaign. This response here, to the objective fact of reality which contradicts your assertion hat Bill Clinton didn't want welfare reform, is why you deserved to be insulted. Anger at reality is ingrained in the morally defective conservative character. Hence, rejection of science, facts, etc.


Also: don't want to be insulted? Make the choice not to be a degenerate conservative. Accept reality, even when it angers you. Not that hard.
 
2012-06-26 08:05:10 PM
wilmatheater.org
"Well... Looks like my work is done here."

thewritepractice.com
 
2012-06-26 08:07:37 PM

Hideously Gigantic Smurf: [wilmatheater.org image 260x331]
"Well... Looks like my work is done here."

[thewritepractice.com image 640x429]


I miss my lung, Bob...
 
2012-06-26 08:31:28 PM

Tor_Eckman: nor the Wiki you cited disproves that the CBPP is non-partisan


All their donors are leftists. Try again.

You really suck at this.

No, you merely refuse to believe anything except that you & everything you believe are correct. You've managed to bully most of the conservatives into leaving FARK altogether, or simply avoiding you clowns, because you cite left-leaning shills like the CBPP as solemn fact and deride anyone who shows facts to the contrary as trolls, derp, wharrgarbl, etc. You claim that your sources are unbiased and that anyone who disagrees is a liar, an evil person, etc. Then, when hyou get challenged, you accuse the challenger of being "angry." You have no intellectual honesty whatsoever, and attempt to hide this with insults and smugness. I know it plays very well in this little echo chamber of yours, but it's bullshiat.
 
2012-06-26 08:34:45 PM

bugontherug: Also: don't want to be insulted? Make the choice not to be a degenerate conservative.


I give two farks if you insult me. I'm merely pointing it out.

How about you make the choice not to be a disingenuous leftist, instead?

Accept reality, even when it angers you.

I'm not the one who doesn't accept reality.
 
2012-06-26 08:41:30 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: nor the Wiki you cited disproves that the CBPP is non-partisan

All their donors are leftists. Try again.

You really suck at this.

No, you merely refuse to believe anything except that you & everything you believe are correct. You've managed to bully most of the conservatives into leaving FARK altogether, or simply avoiding you clowns, because you cite left-leaning shills like the CBPP as solemn fact and deride anyone who shows facts to the contrary as trolls, derp, wharrgarbl, etc. You claim that your sources are unbiased and that anyone who disagrees is a liar, an evil person, etc. Then, when hyou get challenged, you accuse the challenger of being "angry." You have no intellectual honesty whatsoever, and attempt to hide this with insults and smugness. I know it plays very well in this little echo chamber of yours, but it's bullshiat.


Most of the "conservatives" on here have been chased away because they spout easily debunked pablum like you. You're full of nothing but boilerplate nonsense fed to you by Fox and Beck and Townhall and all of the other various righty propaganda delivery devices. You have done nothing to prove any of the ridiculous assertions you have made since showing up on here a few days ago after allegedly lurking for ten years.

People that have been around here for a while can sniff out obvious sock puppets like you from a mile away. You're not the first, the last, and you are certainly not even close to the best of the puke-spewers that have shown up here over the last five years or so.

Feel free to go peddle your nonsense to a more receptive audience. Nobody here is buying your tired old Fark independent act, and you shouldn't be selling it.
 
2012-06-26 08:46:20 PM

Job Creator: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x444]

Funny how the Great Society reforms resulted in the poverty rate plunging, it leveled off in 1979-1980, then rose dramatically with every Republican administration. Until 1993 or so, when it plunged during the Clinton administration.

Also, too I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for "trillions of dollars" spent on the "War on Poverty." Seems like that figure comes from the Office of Pulling it Out of Your Arse.


It's just like that Republican attack on Obama about how gas prices were so low when he came into office (because of the recession) but were now high because of his evil socialist policies.
 
2012-06-26 08:46:29 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: nor the Wiki you cited disproves that the CBPP is non-partisan

All their donors are leftists. Try again.

You really suck at this.

No, you merely refuse to believe anything except that you & everything you believe are correct. You've managed to bully most of the conservatives into leaving FARK altogether, or simply avoiding you clowns, because you cite left-leaning shills like the CBPP as solemn fact and deride anyone who shows facts to the contrary as trolls, derp, wharrgarbl, etc. You claim that your sources are unbiased and that anyone who disagrees is a liar, an evil person, etc. Then, when hyou get challenged, you accuse the challenger of being "angry." You have no intellectual honesty whatsoever, and attempt to hide this with insults and smugness. I know it plays very well in this little echo chamber of yours, but it's bullshiat.


Now that's some big screen projection. You man bro?
 
2012-06-26 08:46:39 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: No, you merely refuse to believe anything except that you & everything you believe are correct. You've managed to bully most of the conservatives into leaving FARK altogether, or simply avoiding you clowns, because you cite left-leaning shills like the CBPP as solemn fact and deride anyone who shows facts to the contrary as trolls, derp, wharrgarbl, etc. You claim that your sources are unbiased and that anyone who disagrees is a liar, an evil person, etc. Then, when hyou get challenged, you accuse the challenger of being "angry." You have no intellectual honesty whatsoever, and attempt to hide this with insults and smugness. I know it plays very well in this little echo chamber of yours, but it's bullshiat.


What color is the sky in your world?
 
2012-06-26 08:52:46 PM
Also how can anyone claim Reagan reduced poverty when it went from 18.3 to 19.5 percent during the time he was in office.
 
2012-06-26 09:08:09 PM

Tor_Eckman: propaganda


What you believe is solemn fact, what you don't believe is propaganda. Got it.

Mises is propaganda; CBPP is "non-partisan." Got it.

You've "easily debunked me." Got it.

I get all my ideas from talk radio and Fox News. Got it.

Thing is, I can argue my points without name calling and condescension. You can't. (Calling you leftists is not an insult. The policies many of you advocate, and your unflinching support for Obama who is an outright leftist (except where Wall Street and the banks are concerned), are proof that a great many of you are leftists.) I attack your ideas, but I'm not constantly calling you evil, stupid, etc. for having them. And no, I could give a shiat that you insult me. But it's a sign of a weak argument, one that doesn't stand up to scrutiy.
 
2012-06-26 09:12:50 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: propaganda

What you believe is solemn fact, what you don't believe is propaganda. Got it.

Mises is propaganda; CBPP is "non-partisan." Got it.

You've "easily debunked me." Got it.

I get all my ideas from talk radio and Fox News. Got it.

Thing is, I can argue my points without name calling and condescension. You can't. (Calling you leftists is not an insult. The policies many of you advocate, and your unflinching support for Obama who is an outright leftist (except where Wall Street and the banks are concerned), are proof that a great many of you are leftists.) I attack your ideas, but I'm not constantly calling you evil, stupid, etc. for having them. And no, I could give a shiat that you insult me. But it's a sign of a weak argument, one that doesn't stand up to scrutiy.


I insult you because your ridiculous assertions and citations deserve nothing more.

I'm not going to try to have a serious conversation with someone that cites Newsbusters.
 
2012-06-26 09:13:58 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Obama who is an outright leftist


i2.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-06-26 09:14:22 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Thing is, I can argue my points without name calling and condescension.


Blanket accusations and projection while ignoring the countless right-wing trolls on this site is a-ok, though.
 
2012-06-26 09:17:08 PM
 
2012-06-26 09:19:28 PM
Obama the outright leftist, killing people with drone strikes, including American citizens. Bailing out Wall St. and not going after criminal speculators. Handouts to health care companies with a watered down health care reform bill. That damn leftist.
 
2012-06-26 09:24:25 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: propaganda

What you believe is solemn fact, what you don't believe is propaganda. Got it.

Mises is propaganda; CBPP is "non-partisan." Got it.

You've "easily debunked me." Got it.

I get all my ideas from talk radio and Fox News. Got it.

Thing is, I can argue my points without name calling and condescension. You can't. (Calling you leftists is not an insult. The policies many of you advocate, and your unflinching support for Obama who is an outright leftist (except where Wall Street and the banks are concerned), are proof that a great many of you are leftists.) I attack your ideas, but I'm not constantly calling you evil, stupid, etc. for having them. And no, I could give a shiat that you insult me. But it's a sign of a weak argument, one that doesn't stand up to scrutiy.


Sigh-tay-shun Knee-Dud.

//prez policy and record, not Senate.
//getting popcorn
//no need for nitrous tonight
 
2012-06-26 09:26:04 PM
Newt Gingrich: Obama is the most radical president in history.



Media: [dumbfounded or lazy = silence]



American "Red" People: Holy shiat, Newt's right! Obama is an outright leftist Alinskyist f*ckhead!
 
2012-06-26 09:34:57 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Tor_Eckman: ...non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities...

Non-partisan my ass, bub.

And since you guys use Wikipedia as a source, I will too: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities - Donors

As I said, non-partisan, my ass.


So the Atlantic was butthurt because tax cuts that originated under Bush were called Bush Tax Cuts when they were extended under Obama in return for unemployment benefits? ZOMG partisan!!!!!

Also what's wrong with their donors?
 
2012-06-26 10:23:18 PM

Rev.K: The federal government is not making much headway reducing poverty despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars, according to a study by the libertarian Cato Institute.

Libertarians give a sh*t about poverty? News to me.


Amazing how the geniuses at the Cato Institute don't seem to mention that with the increases in welfare spending, the actual poverty rate hasn't increased much, despite at least three recessions and one total meltdown of the US economy happening since 1965.

It's almost as if the extra money was helpful in not seeing poverty rates increase further.

Nah, that's crazy talk.


Why yes we do care about poverty. The issue at hand is that the government tends to focus FAR too much on inputs, and not have the same kind of diligence about the outputs. Sure we spent $600+ billion on anti- / poverty programs -- what are WE getting out of it? Are more people being put to work? Are less families dependent on bi-weekly government handout? Are the people who are currently on the program feel as though it's a safety net; as opposed to a hammock?

The crazy talk is the untold billions, if not trillions of dollars that went into invading, occupying, rebuilding, and 'securing' Iraq -- The SAME billions that if used in this country to help rebuild roads, bridges, other pieces of deteriorating infrastructure could have put millions of people back to work, and KEPT them employed. Instead of it all going into the coffers of asshole defense contractors like Halliburton , Blackwater/ Xe, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon.
 
2012-06-26 10:28:46 PM

TheEdibleSnuggie: Rev.K: The federal government is not making much headway reducing poverty despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars, according to a study by the libertarian Cato Institute.

Libertarians give a sh*t about poverty? News to me.


Amazing how the geniuses at the Cato Institute don't seem to mention that with the increases in welfare spending, the actual poverty rate hasn't increased much, despite at least three recessions and one total meltdown of the US economy happening since 1965.

It's almost as if the extra money was helpful in not seeing poverty rates increase further.

Nah, that's crazy talk.

Why yes we do care about poverty. The issue at hand is that the government tends to focus FAR too much on inputs, and not have the same kind of diligence about the outputs. Sure we spent $600+ billion on anti- / poverty programs -- what are WE getting out of it? Are more people being put to work? Are less families dependent on bi-weekly government handout? Are the people who are currently on the program feel as though it's a safety net; as opposed to a hammock?

The crazy talk is the untold billions, if not trillions of dollars that went into invading, occupying, rebuilding, and 'securing' Iraq -- The SAME billions that if used in this country to help rebuild roads, bridges, other pieces of deteriorating infrastructure could have put millions of people back to work, and KEPT them employed. Instead of it all going into the coffers of asshole defense contractors like Halliburton , Blackwater/ Xe, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon.


Ah yes, the good old community safety net of the church (or comparable organization). FFS, that is about the saddest excuse for policy I've seen since 9-9-9. You realize that if an entire community is ravaged by Bain Capitol (which, has happened), who the f*ck is giving to the church? How is anyone going to get charity from an empty coffer?

Spare us the RON PAUL Newsletter's Greatest Hits.
 
2012-06-26 10:46:41 PM

coco ebert: As long as racial and xenophobic demagoguery exists people will vote against their economic interests and sh*t will just keep getting worse. I speak as someone doing ethnographic work on these issues in the South. It's so depressing.


NB: If the South has you down, do yourself a favor and steer clear of Detroit's red suburbs.
 
2012-06-26 10:47:05 PM

coeyagi: TheEdibleSnuggie: Rev.K: The federal government is not making much headway reducing poverty despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars, according to a study by the libertarian Cato Institute.

Libertarians give a sh*t about poverty? News to me.


Amazing how the geniuses at the Cato Institute don't seem to mention that with the increases in welfare spending, the actual poverty rate hasn't increased much, despite at least three recessions and one total meltdown of the US economy happening since 1965.

It's almost as if the extra money was helpful in not seeing poverty rates increase further.

Nah, that's crazy talk.

Why yes we do care about poverty. The issue at hand is that the government tends to focus FAR too much on inputs, and not have the same kind of diligence about the outputs. Sure we spent $600+ billion on anti- / poverty programs -- what are WE getting out of it? Are more people being put to work? Are less families dependent on bi-weekly government handout? Are the people who are currently on the program feel as though it's a safety net; as opposed to a hammock?

The crazy talk is the untold billions, if not trillions of dollars that went into invading, occupying, rebuilding, and 'securing' Iraq -- The SAME billions that if used in this country to help rebuild roads, bridges, other pieces of deteriorating infrastructure could have put millions of people back to work, and KEPT them employed. Instead of it all going into the coffers of asshole defense contractors like Halliburton , Blackwater/ Xe, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon.

Ah yes, the good old community safety net of the church (or comparable organization). FFS, that is about the saddest excuse for policy I've seen since 9-9-9. You realize that if an entire community is ravaged by Bain Capitol (which, has happened), who the f*ck is giving to the church? How is anyone going to get charity from an empty coffer?

Spare us the RON PAUL Newsletter's Greatest Hits.


Whoa, whoa, whoa- we got ourselves a badass here!

I think you missed what I was getting at. I never called for the government elimination of social welfare programs. Just that there needs to be a bit more of a focus on results as opposed to continuing to throw money at a problem to only stagnate its progress. If that means A LOT of money gets axed in the process, then so-be-it. That money was never supposed to be there in the first place, if that's the case.

Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid filled with fear, cynicism, and hatred of anything different that doesn't conscribe citizens to a life of debt, servitude, violence, fear of failure and leaving the safety net. I'm tired of one side blaming the other for the faults of society instead of placing the blame and responsibility for the problem on the shoulders of those who caused it all.
 
2012-06-26 10:51:09 PM

Aarontology: Dancin_In_Anson: Aarontology: I don't care, I support welfare for farmers. I mean subsidies for agriculture.

Nah. In fact how about we trash the entire Farm Bill currently working it's way through congress?

Not gonna happen. Neither party ever really opposes a Farm Bill.

The food those food stamps will pay for have to come from somewhere. So not only do the welfare farmers aren't liable for losses thanks to the insurance subsidy, they get guaranteed income due to suppliers purchasing food to resell to the people on food stamps.

Of course, there will be the ignorant teabaggers who scream bloody murder about lazy people on food stamps while wining about how farms don't enough help without realizing that people who buy food have to, you know, have someone to grow it in the first place.

Besides, food security is national security.


How dare you assume that an elected government based on representative democracy has the right to set public policy for the purposes of national security. Don't know that taxation of any form is theft and a form of violent coercion? I mean sure, the only reason why property rights exist is because there is a government with a court system and authority backing up individual claims to parcels of land and goods, but you can't expect the bootstrappy self-made men of iron to be responsible for any of that???
 
2012-06-26 10:52:55 PM

TheEdibleSnuggie: Stop drinking the liberal Kool-Aid filled with fear, cynicism, and hatred of anything different that doesn't conscribe citizens to a life of debt, servitude, violence, fear of failure and leaving the safety net.


Well, someone's been drinking Kool-Aid, that's for damn sure.
 
2012-06-26 10:53:01 PM

mat catastrophe: It's hard to eliminate poverty when every single policy enacted over forty years has increased it.

Let's start with enacting a maximum wage, followed by a meaningful minimum wage. Let's move on to destroying the profit motive in food production, then health care, then real estate.

And if the rich don't like it, fark 'em. There's always Macau.


As far as I know those sort of policies haven't worked anywhere they've been tried. In fact full on socialism has performed so badly it is almost extinct.

I think it's now pretty clear that the corporate capitalism that exists in the US also does not work. The standard of living for everyday ordinary people in the US has slipped from the highest in the world to being in danger of dropping out of the top 20 in just 40 years. So no, it really is not working for any one except the wealthy.

The best compromise so far between raw capitalism and socialism seems to be the type of social democracy that exists in many Northern European countries like Norway and Sweden, and to a lesser degree Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
 
2012-06-26 10:55:00 PM

TheEdibleSnuggie: coeyagi: TheEdibleSnuggie: Rev.K: The federal government is not making much headway reducing poverty despite spending hundreds of billions of dollars, according to a study by the libertarian Cato Institute.

Libertarians give a sh*t about poverty? News to me.


Amazing how the geniuses at the Cato Institute don't seem to mention that with the increases in welfare spending, the actual poverty rate hasn't increased much, despite at least three recessions and one total meltdown of the US economy happening since 1965.

It's almost as if the extra money was helpful in not seeing poverty rates increase further.

Nah, that's crazy talk.

Why yes we do care about poverty. The issue at hand is that the government tends to focus FAR too much on inputs, and not have the same kind of diligence about the outputs. Sure we spent $600+ billion on anti- / poverty programs -- what are WE getting out of it? Are more people being put to work? Are less families dependent on bi-weekly government handout? Are the people who are currently on the program feel as though it's a safety net; as opposed to a hammock?

The crazy talk is the untold billions, if not trillions of dollars that went into invading, occupying, rebuilding, and 'securing' Iraq -- The SAME billions that if used in this country to help rebuild roads, bridges, other pieces of deteriorating infrastructure could have put millions of people back to work, and KEPT them employed. Instead of it all going into the coffers of asshole defense contractors like Halliburton , Blackwater/ Xe, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon.

Ah yes, the good old community safety net of the church (or comparable organization). FFS, that is about the saddest excuse for policy I've seen since 9-9-9. You realize that if an entire community is ravaged by Bain Capitol (which, has happened), who the f*ck is giving to the church? How is anyone going to get charity from an empty coffer?

Spare us the RON PAUL Newsletter's Greatest ...


You offered no solutions. Just bullshiat rhetoric like "focus on outcomes". HOW, DUMBASS? The libertarian shiat I hear is stuff like churches are the safety net. But you didn't address that at all and just went off on me with some supposition that I completely support the existing system. I wish we spent less too - maybe if we incentivize creating jobs so that there is a greater middle class to stimulate the economy, there would be less of a need. No one WANTS a system of dependency, so if you start from that rhetorical position you are obviously a clueless clown.
 
2012-06-26 11:01:49 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: bugontherug: "Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to 'end welfare as we have come to know it.'[2]"

Link

Many people agree that "facts" increase the persuasive appeal of an argument, while "bullsh*t pulled out of your cavernous asshole" decreases it.

I can cite pbs.org in this issue; you cite Wikipedia, then you insult me.

Nice.


I cited to the freaking Department of Health and Human Services, and all you could manage was your sad b/s from the Brookings Institute, that hotbed of communist socialism, where the fourth paragraph you cited said:

But I think he signed the bill because he believed the welfare system was flawed, he believed in tough work requirements, and he also supported several other reforms in the bill, especially the child support enforcement reforms.

Which is a long long way from "Republicans revised the welfare system and pushed it down Clinton's throat."
 
2012-06-26 11:14:13 PM

kg2095: mat catastrophe: It's hard to eliminate poverty when every single policy enacted over forty years has increased it.

Let's start with enacting a maximum wage, followed by a meaningful minimum wage. Let's move on to destroying the profit motive in food production, then health care, then real estate.

And if the rich don't like it, fark 'em. There's always Macau.

As far as I know those sort of policies haven't worked anywhere they've been tried. In fact full on socialism has performed so badly it is almost extinct.

I think it's now pretty clear that the corporate capitalism that exists in the US also does not work. The standard of living for everyday ordinary people in the US has slipped from the highest in the world to being in danger of dropping out of the top 20 in just 40 years. So no, it really is not working for any one except the wealthy.

The best compromise so far between raw capitalism and socialism seems to be the type of social democracy that exists in many Northern European countries like Norway and Sweden, and to a lesser degree Australia, Canada and New Zealand.


No, I refuse to listen to the calm voice of socialist reason. I want full communism before breakfast!
 
2012-06-26 11:23:39 PM

coeyagi: You offered no solutions. Just bullshiat rhetoric like "focus on outcomes". HOW, DUMBASS? The libertarian shiat I hear is stuff like churches are the safety net. But you didn't address that at all and just went off on me with some supposition that I completely support the existing system. I wish we spent less too - maybe if we incentivize creating jobs so that there is a greater middle class to stimulate the economy, there would be less of a need. No one WANTS a system of dependency, so if you start from that rhetorical position you are obviously a clueless clown.


And what solutions did YOU offer exactly dickhead? Keeping things status quo isn't a solution-- it's part of the farking problem. Just like how saying by getting rid of social welfare programs is just as detrimental and dangerous.

I've identified that the system in its current state is broken, god-awfully cyclical, and creates dependence as opposed to independence. I don't know how to fix the problem myself, and if I did chances are I wouldn't be opining about it on a social media open forum, with you.
 
2012-06-26 11:26:40 PM

coeyagi: Sigh-tay-shun Knee-Dud.


Nah. Any citation I provide will automatically be discarded as biased, because to you folks, "bias" means "doesn't share your views." It's a strategy perfected by Carville and Clinton: claim victory, no matter the reality. Just go around telling everybody you won. Poof, presto! You say you won - it must be true! Oh, your opponent says they won? Well, that's because they're liars.

I tell you what. Here's an article that is every bit as credible as anything you leftist farkers will post, written by a PhD. If it's not enough, meh.
 
2012-06-26 11:37:36 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: Sigh-tay-shun Knee-Dud.

Nah. Any citation I provide will automatically be discarded as biased, because to you folks, "bias" means "doesn't share your views." It's a strategy perfected by Carville and Clinton: claim victory, no matter the reality. Just go around telling everybody you won. Poof, presto! You say you won - it must be true! Oh, your opponent says they won? Well, that's because they're liars.

I tell you what. Here's an article that is every bit as credible as anything you leftist farkers will post, written by a PhD. If it's not enough, meh.


A farking blog?

FTB:

Obama is a leftist, granted, but he isn't just any leftist, and he certainly isn't just your run-of-the-mill "liberal Democrat" as those like Michael Medved would have his more "unreasonable" brethren on the right believe. By now (and, truth be told, long before now), anyone and everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear shouldn't need to be told that Obama is and has always been squarely located in what could only be characterized as "the hard left." That is to say, Obama is, if not a Marxist, a neo-Marxist.

This guy is totally legit.

/Just because he has a PhD doesn't mean he's a loon
//See Jerome Corsi PhD
 
2012-06-26 11:40:50 PM
How did I miss this golden nugget from the crappy blog SFY just posted:

Bearing in mind the foregoing considerations, the verdict is decisive. It isn't from any sympathy with Islam as such that Obama's sympathy for Muslims derives; he could care less what religion-if any-they are. Rather, it is from Obama's self-identification as a "Black man" that explains his attitude toward Muslims, for his racial authenticity requires, not just sympathy for, but "solidarity" with, "the oppression" that the world's "people of color" suffer at the hands of whites.

Totally not racist...
 
2012-06-26 11:49:05 PM

Mrtraveler01: Totally not racist...


Of course. If a white person is concerned about the fortunes of white people, he's a racist. If a black person is concerned about the fortunes of black people, he's enlightened. I didn't note the author saying that Obama's "solidarity" was a bad thing, merely noting that it existed, and using it to explain that no, Obama is not a muslim. He's a neo-marxist who is more concerned with the well being of people of color than with the well-being of "white people." Well, Mr. Genius, how do you think he came to sit in Wright's church for 20 years, if he didn't lean that way?

You ought to come hang out in Memphis for a while. I'll show you just how racist black people can really be. (Hint: every bit as racist as white people - no more, no less...)
 
2012-06-26 11:54:28 PM

Aar1012: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Dusk-You-n-Me: Clearly we need more tax cuts for the rich.

No no no... we need to invade Iran.

Why not both?


Two great wastes that waste great together!
 
2012-06-26 11:55:47 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: You ought to come hang out in Memphis for a while. I'll show you just how racist black people can really be. (Hint: every bit as racist as white people - no more, no less...)


Yes everyone in Memphis is racist, both blacks and whites. That's why it's the hellhole it is and would be on the level of Jackson, MS if it wasn't for the Fedex hub.

The point is that the guy is implying that Obama is racist to white people although he has absolutely nothing besides his own insane ramblings.
 
2012-06-27 12:11:46 AM

Mrtraveler01: Yes everyone in Memphis is racist, both blacks and whites. That's why it's the hellhole it is and would be on the level of Jackson, MS if it wasn't for the Fedex hub.


Actually, no. It's a hellhole because the economic PTB keep it deliberately uneducated and destitute. The investment banks don't loan to companies that want to bring high-paying jobs to Memphis, because it'll screw up the wage base for the corporate clients already here. Truth. This is the distribution hub of the whole country. They like their labor cheap and stupid. it drives me nuts. This city should totally rock, even if it is in the South and overrun with derptastic fundies.

The point is that the guy is implying that Obama is racist to white people although he has absolutely nothing besides his own insane ramblings.

And "liberation theology." But hey, that doesn't mean anything, right? Explain why DOJ lawyers quit over Holder's refusal to prosecute "slam-dunk" cases of voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers in 2008, and Obama has done nothing to push the DOJ into doing their job? Do you think he'd ignore voter intimidation against people of color?

I've long thought that Obama's got a bit of a chip on his shoulder against white people. History being what it is, I can forgive him for a fair bit of it, but I can't forgive him for governing from that perspective, and at least in the DOJ/Black Panther situation, it's pretty clear that he has. So I think the blogger has a legit point.
 
2012-06-27 12:23:31 AM

SouthernFriedYankee: And "liberation theology." But hey, that doesn't mean anything, right? Explain why DOJ lawyers quit over Holder's refusal to prosecute "slam-dunk" cases of voter intimidation against the New Black Panthers in 2008


You guys are still farking this chicken?

Link

Link

(in fact, the Bush administration decided not to pursue criminal charges, with Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez testifying that the Bush Justice Department "determined that the facts did not constitute a prosecutable violation of the criminal statutes"; a civil lawsuit was filed in the last days of the Bush administration, and a judgment won by the Obama Justice Department in May 2009).

But i guess the Bush Administration hated white people too right?
 
2012-06-27 12:24:35 AM

SouthernFriedYankee: I've long thought that Obama's got a bit of a chip on his shoulder against white people. History being what it is,


You really have been in Memphis for too long...
 
2012-06-27 01:11:55 AM
I've been saying this for 20+ years.
 
2012-06-27 01:15:07 AM

Cythraul: Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Yep. An eliminating the safety net for the poorest of the poor never starts bloody revolutions, either.

I thought the goal was to eliminate poverty altogether.

I never said that. One could argue it is an effort to reduce poverty. Or to reduce the impact of being poor has on one's life. But to eliminate poverty all together seems like an unrealistic goal.

But if it's 'not working,' by all means, get rid of the program. As a liberal, I want to see welfare eliminated. Get rid of all of the 'entitlements.' Everything from Medicare, to Pell Grants to Food Stamps. I seriously would like to sit back and laugh when the shiat hits the fan after.


There was a time when Medicare, Pell grants and food stamps didn't exist. Guess what, not one turd hit one fan blade.
 
2012-06-27 01:21:49 AM

mat catastrophe: It's hard to eliminate poverty when every single policy enacted over forty years has increased it.

Let's start with enacting a maximum wage, followed by a meaningful minimum wage. Let's move on to destroying the profit motive in food production, then health care, then real estate.

And if the rich don't like it, fark 'em. There's always Macau.


Do you really think that a maximum wage will accomplish anything good? Let's say you set it at $100,000. If a brain surgeon makes $200,000 per year, do you really think that he'll work six months for free? I don't; he's more likely to take a six month vacation every year. Any way you look at it, high earners will produce less and GDP, along with the production of the various things we consume, will plummet.

I don't know why, but I'm constantly amazed at how little thought people put into their stupid ideas.
 
2012-06-27 01:27:58 AM

Job Creator: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x444]

Funny how the Great Society reforms resulted in the poverty rate plunging, it leveled off in 1979-1980, then rose dramatically with every Republican administration. Until 1993 or so, when it plunged during the Clinton administration.

Also, too I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for "trillions of dollars" spent on the "War on Poverty." Seems like that figure comes from the Office of Pulling it Out of Your Arse.


You do know that all those changes of direction in the graph are the result of changing the definition of poverty, don't you?
 
2012-06-27 01:33:06 AM

SouthernFriedYankee: I get all my ideas from talk radio and Fox News. Got it.


The first step is admitting that there is a problem. Congratulations on achieving your first milestone.
 
2012-06-27 01:36:27 AM

SouthernFriedYankee: coeyagi: Sigh-tay-shun Knee-Dud.

Nah. Any citation I provide will automatically be discarded as biased, because to you folks, "bias" means "doesn't share your views." It's a strategy perfected by Carville and Clinton: claim victory, no matter the reality. Just go around telling everybody you won. Poof, presto! You say you won - it must be true! Oh, your opponent says they won? Well, that's because they're liars.

I tell you what. Here's an article that is every bit as credible as anything you leftist farkers will post, written by a PhD. If it's not enough, meh.


Yep, Obama is the most leftist president in history. I mean, he's really done stuff to hold a candle to the Peace Corps. And that gay thing a few weeks ago! OMG, all he did was echo the majority opinion of his constituents! That monster! And HEALTHCARE REFORM! ZOMG, the individual mandate forces people to be responsible! And it doesn't cost us anything (source: CBO)!
 
2012-06-27 01:43:33 AM

TheEdibleSnuggie: coeyagi: You offered no solutions. Just bullshiat rhetoric like "focus on outcomes". HOW, DUMBASS? The libertarian shiat I hear is stuff like churches are the safety net. But you didn't address that at all and just went off on me with some supposition that I completely support the existing system. I wish we spent less too - maybe if we incentivize creating jobs so that there is a greater middle class to stimulate the economy, there would be less of a need. No one WANTS a system of dependency, so if you start from that rhetorical position you are obviously a clueless clown.

And what solutions did YOU offer exactly dickhead? Keeping things status quo isn't a solution-- it's part of the farking problem. Just like how saying by getting rid of social welfare programs is just as detrimental and dangerous.

I've identified that the system in its current state is broken, god-awfully cyclical, and creates dependence as opposed to independence. I don't know how to fix the problem myself, and if I did chances are I wouldn't be opining about it on a social media open forum, with you.


It's tough to take anyone seriously who has a "Brain of a Liberal Democrat" infographic in their profile. And yes, I did point it out (bold), maybe not with the nitty gritty details you wanted, but we'll still have to suffer your libertarian "church" solution I guess until you decide to man-up and come up with something realistic.

//And by incentivize I mean bring more consumers to the market (healthcare reform), stimulate the economy with temporary demand solutions (26 months of positive public sector job growth), and start looking for alternative energy solutions for positive sustainable job growth in the future because fossil fuels is not sustainable.
 
2012-06-27 01:45:52 AM

DrPainMD: Cythraul: Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Yep. An eliminating the safety net for the poorest of the poor never starts bloody revolutions, either.

I thought the goal was to eliminate poverty altogether.

I never said that. One could argue it is an effort to reduce poverty. Or to reduce the impact of being poor has on one's life. But to eliminate poverty all together seems like an unrealistic goal.

But if it's 'not working,' by all means, get rid of the program. As a liberal, I want to see welfare eliminated. Get rid of all of the 'entitlements.' Everything from Medicare, to Pell Grants to Food Stamps. I seriously would like to sit back and laugh when the shiat hits the fan after.

There was a time when Medicare, Pell grants and food stamps didn't exist. Guess what, not one turd hit one fan blade.


Yep, everyone was going to college and poverty was nearly non-existent back in the good ole days of entitlement-less America.
 
2012-06-27 02:04:44 AM

SouthernFriedYankee: I can cite pbs.org in this issue; you cite Wikipedia, then you insult me.

Nice.



Why did you not recall your claim that only 30% of entitlement money went to recipients, when the chart showing you were incorrect was presented?

I notice you just skipped right over that, instead of being honest and admitting you were wrong.

Why should I believe anything you say if you are willing to be that dishonest?
 
2012-06-27 02:11:36 AM

coeyagi:

DrPainMD: There was a time when Medicare, Pell grants and food stamps didn't exist. Guess what, not one turd hit one fan blade.

Yep, everyone was going to college and poverty was nearly non-existent back in the good ole days of entitlement-less America.


Now, now. There really was a time when the middle class constituted a healthy majority of the population.
When unions represented 30% of workers, 65% were middle class.
Now that unions represent only 7% of private sector workers, fewer than 42% of workers are middle class.
Union membership and middle class membership declined in lockstep.

Now I'm not sayin' that correlation necessarily implies causation, but ...
 
2012-06-27 02:20:20 AM

DrPainMD: I've been saying this for 20+ years.


And you're still wrong.
 
2012-06-27 06:44:09 AM
I've been cleaning my house for years. I've bought a new vacum and more cleaning products but the average cleanliness of my house hasn't become any better.

The obvious solution is just to stop cleaning.
 
2012-06-27 07:29:41 AM

SouthernFriedYankee: Obama is not a muslim. He's a neo-marxist who is more concerned with the well being of people of color than with the well-being of "white people."


CITATION NEEDED

Seriously, pull your head out of your ass, we have air and sunshine out here.
 
2012-06-27 07:52:05 AM

Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Welfare is supposed to eliminate poverty? I thought it was mainly used to prevent people from starving to death.

One of the stated objectives of The Great Society was the elimination of poverty.


can't do that when a major part of the govt is devoted to not only promoting but exacerbating the income inequality in the country. right now Mitch McConnell is openly talking about how the poor need taxes raised so they can cut them for rich people more. this is after an almost 40 yr stagnation of wages for the middle class while all the new wealth has gone to the top 1%. you can't take that much money out of the economy and send it overseas or hoard it like they do and expect to have a healthy economy.
the idea that the rich are "job creators" is a lit and needs to die.
job creators are middle and even lower class people who spend their money here on goods and services every day.
demand creates jobs. not the other way around.
we've pursued that rabbit so far down the hole that we're buried in a mountain of debt trying to make that very wrong idea work.
 
2012-06-27 07:56:37 AM

demaL-demaL-yeH: coeyagi:

DrPainMD: There was a time when Medicare, Pell grants and food stamps didn't exist. Guess what, not one turd hit one fan blade.

Yep, everyone was going to college and poverty was nearly non-existent back in the good ole days of entitlement-less America.

Now, now. There really was a time when the middle class constituted a healthy majority of the population.
When unions represented 30% of workers, 65% were middle class.
Now that unions represent only 7% of private sector workers, fewer than 42% of workers are middle class.
Union membership and middle class membership declined in lockstep.

Now I'm not sayin' that correlation necessarily implies causation, but ...


back when the rich paid up to 90 % of their income in taxes.
before the American worker was sold to the highest bidding foreign slave traders.
before the middle class was thrown into the pit to compete with 3rd world labor.
 
2012-06-27 07:58:59 AM
img191.imageshack.us
 
2012-06-27 08:16:11 AM

Hobodeluxe: can't do that when a major part of the govt is devoted to not only promoting but exacerbating the income inequality in the country. right now Mitch McConnell is openly talking about how the poor need taxes raised so they can cut them for rich people more. this is after an almost 40 yr stagnation of wages for the middle class while all the new wealth has gone to the top 1%. you can't take that much money out of the economy and send it overseas or hoard it like they do and expect to have a healthy economy.
the idea that the rich are "job creators" is a lit and needs to die.
job creators are middle and even lower class people who spend their money here on goods and services every day.
demand creates jobs. not the other way around.
we've pursued that rabbit so far down the hole that we're buried in a mountain of debt trying to make that very wrong idea work.



How about a modest proposal? Let's imprison the rich, seize their wealth, give it to to various government agencies to be dispersed at the whim of the bureaucracy?
 
2012-06-27 08:27:47 AM

Cythraul: Dancin_In_Anson: Cythraul: Welfare is supposed to eliminate poverty? I thought it was mainly used to prevent people from starving to death.

One of the stated objectives of The Great Society was the elimination of poverty.

So, let's eliminate welfare? Sounds good to me.


FTA "The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable ... rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty."

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. "
Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn, and Management of the Poor
 
2012-06-27 09:32:00 AM
Income inequality is a fact of life, and not something that should even be eliminated. There will always be people who are make more or are born into more. That's fine, and nothing will change that. But, I believe most people think that extreme income inequality is a bad thing.

The question becomes, what causes extreme income inequality? Is it so-called "tax cuts for teh rich!!" or "corporate welfare," or "massive deregulation"?

Could it be the transition from a producing to a servicing economy? Globalism?

i don't really have an answer for that, but I think that's probably a better place to start looking for answers than the whole tired, "Republicans hate poor blacks" and "Democrats are commie pinko scum" monologue that FARK has become.

Is an honest, semi-intellectual (with some fart jokes and boobies threads interspersed, of course) discussion too much to ask for on the interweb?
 
2012-06-27 09:56:19 AM

SouthernFriedYankee: Obama who is an outright leftist (except where Wall Street and the banks are concerned)


And except the military. And gun control (based on his actual record, not the record you think he's secretly waiting to spring on us). And taxation. And health care reform. And...
 
2012-06-27 09:57:13 AM

daveUSMC: Is an honest, semi-intellectual (with some fart jokes and boobies threads interspersed, of course) discussion too much to ask for on the interweb?


welcometofark.jpg
 
2012-06-27 11:12:32 AM

DrPainMD: mat catastrophe: It's hard to eliminate poverty when every single policy enacted over forty years has increased it.

Let's start with enacting a maximum wage, followed by a meaningful minimum wage. Let's move on to destroying the profit motive in food production, then health care, then real estate.

And if the rich don't like it, fark 'em. There's always Macau.

Do you really think that a maximum wage will accomplish anything good? Let's say you set it at $100,000. If a brain surgeon makes $200,000 per year, do you really think that he'll work six months for free? I don't; he's more likely to take a six month vacation every year. Any way you look at it, high earners will produce less and GDP, along with the production of the various things we consume, will plummet.

I don't know why, but I'm constantly amazed at how little thought people put into their stupid ideas.


If you became a doctor for the money, then fark you.
 
2012-06-27 11:30:42 AM

daveUSMC: Income inequality is a fact of life, and not something that should even be eliminated. There will always be people who are make more or are born into more. That's fine, and nothing will change that. But, I believe most people think that extreme income inequality is a bad thing.

The question becomes, what causes extreme income inequality? Is it so-called "tax cuts for teh rich!!" or "corporate welfare," or "massive deregulation"?

Could it be the transition from a producing to a servicing economy? Globalism?

i don't really have an answer for that, but I think that's probably a better place to start looking for answers than the whole tired, "Republicans hate poor blacks" and "Democrats are commie pinko scum" monologue that FARK has become.

Is an honest, semi-intellectual (with some fart jokes and boobies threads interspersed, of course) discussion too much to ask for on the interweb?


Seems that way. Sigh.
 
2012-06-27 11:51:21 AM

Mrtraveler01: You guys are still farking this chicken?

Link

Link


Link


After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs. I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.


Mrtraveler01: SouthernFriedYankee: I've long thought that Obama's got a bit of a chip on his shoulder against white people. History being what it is,

You really have been in Memphis for too long...


Link
 
2012-06-27 04:25:16 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: Job Creator:

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x444]

Funny how the Great Society reforms resulted in the poverty rate plunging, it leveled off in 1979-1980, then rose dramatically with every Republican administration. Until 1993 or so, when it plunged during the Clinton administration.

Also, too I wouldn't mind seeing a citation for "trillions of dollars" spent on the "War on Poverty." Seems like that figure comes from the Office of Pulling it Out of Your Arse.

Can you not read a graph? By the time the Great Society was under way, the levels had already fallen significantly. The first half of that huge slope was during JFK, who cut the top marginal tax rates during his adminstration. And the shaded area represents the end of the CARTER administration and the beginning of the Reagan administration.


Strawman. The levels had already fallen, and they only accelerated under Johnson. Also, Carter left office in 1981. Republican rules, he is no longer responsible for anything after January 20, 1981.
 
2012-06-27 04:29:14 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: qorkfiend: SouthernFriedYankee: Because you have to back up a step and realize that only about 30 cents of every tax dollar taken in for entitlement spending actually makes it to the recipient; the rest gets gobbled up by the machinery of government itself. So, multplying .3 by 1.8, you arrive at 54 cents worth of good. In other words, putting money into entitlement programs basically cuts it almost exactly in half.

This is why the leftists calling me disingenuous doesn't bother me. Not a one of them will acknowledge what I just said, and yet it is absolutely true.

Any citations for your "absolutely true" factoid?

Link


Wow a libertarian think tank concluded this in 1989. Color me convinced...

/not
//not was a popular meme in 1989.
///at least it seems that long
 
2012-06-27 04:32:04 PM

SouthernFriedYankee: intelligent comment below: SouthernFriedYankee: And the shaded area represents the end of the CARTER administration and the beginning of the Reagan administration.


No, the shades show a recession, idiot.

MY. POINT.

One started under Carter, the other under HW Bush. "B-b-b-but Reagan!!"



Except the Carter recession had ended when Raygun took office. Whereas Raygun plunged us into another one in July 1981.
 
2012-06-27 04:37:39 PM

AdolfOliverPanties: I am upper middle class probably. Definitely not lower class and definitely not poor.

I don't own a refrigerator or a washer or dryer.

I live in an apartment that has these things. I could buy them, but I am a single father putting one kid through college with no help from anyone.

Where does Fox News feel I belong?


Depends. What color are you?
 
2012-06-27 06:25:59 PM

hasty ambush: "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. "
Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn, and Management of the Poor



Completely relevant today, since America is the same type of farm society heavily reliant on slave labor.
 
2012-06-27 09:54:51 PM

bugontherug: SouthernFriedYankee: The first half of that huge slope was during JFK, who cut the top marginal tax rates during his adminstration.

Also noteworthy:

[Kennedy] did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

Link

So I'm glad we agree on Kennedynomics as a model for the nation. Demand side tax cuts, and a top marginal rate of 70% sounds about right to me.


Except nobody really paid 70%. Prior to the1980s there were far more deductions and loop holes. The "Reagan tax cuts" were a compromise of lowering marginal rates in exchange for closing loop holes and eliminating or making some deductions harder to take.

Net effect was the rich paid more in taxes

1981 the top 1% paid 17.6% of all personal income taxes,
1988 the top 1% paid 27.5%,
The top 10% of taxpayers share of taxes paid increased from 48.0% in 1981 to 57.2% in 1988. The share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50% of taxpayers dropped from 7.5% in 1981 to 5.7% in 1988.

1981, the top marginal tax rate was 70% In 1989, it was 28%

Federal Income Tax Revenue increased from $326 billion in 1983 to $549 billion in 1989.

Lesson learned: Don't make the tax rate punitive and people will expend less effort looking for ways to avoid paying it.

In what just society does government deserve over 30% of a person's income regardless of the amount?
 
2012-06-27 10:22:17 PM

intelligent comment below: hasty ambush: "I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. -- I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. "
Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn, and Management of the Poor


Completely relevant today, since America is the same type of farm society heavily reliant on slave labor.


Completely relevant whe you consider that the Federal Welfare State has not ended poverty or even significantly reduced it. It has created a mutli-generational dependency class that not only views welfare has an "entitlement" but a career choice.

Any attempt to reform much less end these failed programs is of course bitterly resisted by the poltical left who have among the dependency class a group willing to sell their votes in exchange for continue acess or increased access to other people's money.

If you want to talk about slavery consider that the average american tax payer (an ever decreasing percentage of the population carrying the load for the rest)
had to work until the 17th of April to pay his/her taxes before they started working for themselves

spokelement.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-06-27 10:26:00 PM
Here is a thought. We set up a timeline withe benchmarks so we can withdrawl from this decades long, multi-trillion dollar quagmire known as the war on poverty
 
2012-06-27 10:44:07 PM

hasty ambush: Completely relevant whe you consider that the Federal Welfare State has not ended poverty or even significantly reduced it.



These programs are not designed to end poverty, they are designed to allow people living in poverty a chance to still live life.

They also were mainly designed to end elderly poverty rates, which have significantly dropped.


hasty ambush: Any attempt to reform much less end these failed programs is of course bitterly resisted by the poltical left who have among the dependency class a group willing to sell their votes in exchange for continue acess or increased access to other people's money.



First, learn to spell. And second, remind me what President reformed Welfare in the 1990's?


hasty ambush: If you want to talk about slavery consider that the average american tax payer (an ever decreasing percentage of the population carrying the load for the rest)
had to work until the 17th of April to pay his/her taxes before they started working for themselves



You mean an American tax payer who hasn't paid any lower taxes since the beginning of the income tax?
 
2012-06-27 10:45:02 PM

hasty ambush: Here is a thought. We set up a timeline withe benchmarks so we can withdrawl from this decades long, multi-trillion dollar quagmire known as the war on poverty



I'm sure poverty rates will magically decrease because... magic.

/you might want to spend your hard earned money on an English class
 
2012-06-28 07:19:30 AM

Hobodeluxe: demaL-demaL-yeH: coeyagi:

DrPainMD: There was a time when Medicare, Pell grants and food stamps didn't exist. Guess what, not one turd hit one fan blade.

Yep, everyone was going to college and poverty was nearly non-existent back in the good ole days of entitlement-less America.

Now, now. There really was a time when the middle class constituted a healthy majority of the population.
When unions represented 30% of workers, 65% were middle class.
Now that unions represent only 7% of private sector workers, fewer than 42% of workers are middle class.
Union membership and middle class membership declined in lockstep.

Now I'm not sayin' that correlation necessarily implies causation, but ...

back when the rich paid up to 90 % of their income in taxes.
before the American worker was sold to the highest bidding foreign slave traders.
before the middle class was thrown into the pit to compete with 3rd world labor.


There was NEVER a time in the US when the rich paid 90% of their income in taxes. NEVER. Even when the top MARGINAL RATE (google it) was 90%, nobody paid it (google: loopholes).
 
2012-06-28 07:23:02 AM

mat catastrophe: DrPainMD: mat catastrophe: It's hard to eliminate poverty when every single policy enacted over forty years has increased it.

Let's start with enacting a maximum wage, followed by a meaningful minimum wage. Let's move on to destroying the profit motive in food production, then health care, then real estate.

And if the rich don't like it, fark 'em. There's always Macau.

Do you really think that a maximum wage will accomplish anything good? Let's say you set it at $100,000. If a brain surgeon makes $200,000 per year, do you really think that he'll work six months for free? I don't; he's more likely to take a six month vacation every year. Any way you look at it, high earners will produce less and GDP, along with the production of the various things we consume, will plummet.

I don't know why, but I'm constantly amazed at how little thought people put into their stupid ideas.

If you became a doctor for the money, then fark you.


So, that's your answer: let GDP and tax revenue go down the tubes, and the poverty rate go up, just so you can stick it to the man and gloat about the maximum wage?
 
2012-06-28 01:12:17 PM

intelligent comment below: hasty ambush: Completely relevant whe you consider that the Federal Welfare State has not ended poverty or even significantly reduced it.


These programs are not designed to end poverty, they are designed to allow people living in poverty a chance to still live life.

They also were mainly designed to end elderly poverty rates, which have significantly dropped.


We have already established the the overall poverty rate has remained virtually unchanged and if they were for the elderly why are others drawing from the programs? If the programs do not exist to end poverty (which is how they were sold) but to make people comfortable in "poverty" what incentive is there to get out of poverty?

Like I stated these programs have created a dependency class that politicians can rely on to sell their votes to them in exchange for other people's money. the other people being the tax payers. It is easy for the politician to promise the dependency class more free stuff, thus insuring their political allegiance; after all the politician is not giving them any of his money.


hasty ambush: Any attempt to reform much less end these failed programs is of course bitterly resisted by the political left who have among the dependency class a group willing to sell their votes in exchange for continue acess or increased access to other people's money.


First, learn to spell. And second, remind me what President reformed Welfare in the 1990's?


You mean the same President who apologized for it and promised to "fix" that same reform? There would have been no reform without a Republican controlled House, just like there would not have been any budget surpluses. Prior to that the Clinton Administration was forecasting deficits out to 2000.

hasty ambush: If you want to talk about slavery consider that the average american tax payer (an ever decreasing percentage of the population carrying the load for the rest)
had to work until the 17th of April to pay his/her taxes before they started working for themselves


You mean an American tax payer who hasn't paid any lower taxes since the beginning of the income tax?

??????
 
2012-06-28 03:31:17 PM

DrPainMD: mat catastrophe: DrPainMD: mat catastrophe: It's hard to eliminate poverty when every single policy enacted over forty years has increased it.

Let's start with enacting a maximum wage, followed by a meaningful minimum wage. Let's move on to destroying the profit motive in food production, then health care, then real estate.

And if the rich don't like it, fark 'em. There's always Macau.

Do you really think that a maximum wage will accomplish anything good? Let's say you set it at $100,000. If a brain surgeon makes $200,000 per year, do you really think that he'll work six months for free? I don't; he's more likely to take a six month vacation every year. Any way you look at it, high earners will produce less and GDP, along with the production of the various things we consume, will plummet.

I don't know why, but I'm constantly amazed at how little thought people put into their stupid ideas.

If you became a doctor for the money, then fark you.

So, that's your answer: let GDP and tax revenue go down the tubes, and the poverty rate go up, just so you can stick it to the man and gloat about the maximum wage?


Why should I answer to your asinine hypothetical situation that assumes that every high-income earner is a heartless fark like yourself?
 
2012-06-29 03:48:21 AM

beta_plus: HeartBurnKid: Dancin_In_Anson: Or that one of the actual stated goals of the Great Society was the elimination of poverty.

"Shoot for the moon. Even if you miss, you'll land among the stars."

For America, the results were more like this:

[cdn.babble.com image 600x539]


Wasn't Reagan in charge when that happened?
 
2012-06-29 03:00:20 PM

Bigdogdaddy:
Wasn't Reagan in charge when that happened?


Yes. Yes, he was.
That man was a disaster who did more political and economic damage to the US than the communists ever did.
That picture is the middle class under his watch, too.
And the beginning of the Gordon Gekko era.
And the move from GATT to WTO.
And gutting Glass-Steagall.
"Trickle-down economics."
Iran-Contra.
Redistributing income from the poor to the rich and shifting the tax burden from the rich to the poor.
Reversing Carter's initiative toward achieving energy independence.

Four trillion dollars of extra deficit for weapons systems that had been canceled and "Star Wars" missile defense?
Imagine our infrastructure, health care, retirement, and education systems with that kind of investment thirty years ago.

The Cold War? You're going to hang his "greatness" on that?
The Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact already experiencing an economic meltdown.
And he almost set off World War III - more than once.
 
Displayed 413 of 413 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report