Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Obvious, poverty line, President Johnson, Earned Income Tax Credit  
•       •       •

1406 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Jun 2012 at 12:22 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 413 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report