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.

(Huffington Post)   "The suggestion that we have become a country where those living in poverty fight each other for a handful of crumbs tossed off the tables of the very wealthy is fundamentally wrong,"   (huffingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Hero, social security, Michael McAuliffe, Special-use permit, humans, Sherrod Brown, Patrick McHenry, Ryan Grim, CFPB  
•       •       •

4004 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Nov 2013 at 11:00 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-11-19 09:11:25 AM  
I love my senator
 
2013-11-19 09:21:45 AM  
FTFA:  "This is about our values, and our values tell us that we don't build a future by first deciding who among our most vulnerable will be left to starve....We don't build a future for our children by cutting basic retirement benefits for their grandparents,"

i570.photobucket.com
 
2013-11-19 10:00:08 AM  
"The suggestion that we have become a country where those living in poverty fight each other for a handful of crumbs tossed off the tables of the very wealthy is fundamentally wrong."

Do you know what makes this so "fundamentally wrong"?  Because nobody is suggesting it except a hyperbolic politician with grandiose visions of the White House pandering to her base.
 
2013-11-19 10:01:12 AM  
People act like this is a new thing.

wafreepress.org
 
2013-11-19 10:03:58 AM  
So, what the Senator is basically saying is that she doesn't believe in a society where natural evolution takes place, where the fittest thrive and prosper and "evolve," so to speak, to a more improved and better adapted state. Instead, she believes in a society "designed," so to speak, by presumably "intelligent" higher-ups, who use careful planning and intricate control to govern every aspect of life. Interesting. It reminds me of something, but I can't quite put my finger on it right now.
 
2013-11-19 10:09:39 AM  

Lucky LaRue: "The suggestion that we have become a country where those living in poverty fight each other for a handful of crumbs tossed off the tables of the very wealthy is fundamentally wrong."

Do you know what makes this so "fundamentally wrong"?  Because nobody is suggesting it except a hyperbolic politician with grandiose visions of the White House pandering to her base.


Are you serious?
 
2013-11-19 10:15:56 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Lucky LaRue: "The suggestion that we have become a country where those living in poverty fight each other for a handful of crumbs tossed off the tables of the very wealthy is fundamentally wrong."

Do you know what makes this so "fundamentally wrong"?  Because nobody is suggesting it except a hyperbolic politician with grandiose visions of the White House pandering to her base.

Are you serious?


Can you show me one example of anyone but Elizabeth Warren suggesting that our nation's policy towards poverty is to let the poor "fight each other for a handful of crumbs"?
 
2013-11-19 10:18:55 AM  

Lucky LaRue: Can you show me one example of anyone but Elizabeth Warren suggesting that our nation's policy towards poverty is to let the poor "fight each other for a handful of crumbs"?


in those words? No. Hell, it may just be she's the only one calling us out on it. But to deny that we don't have a wealth divide in this country that boils down to "fark the poor" is woefully ignorant of reality
 
2013-11-19 10:21:08 AM  

somedude210: Lucky LaRue: Can you show me one example of anyone but Elizabeth Warren suggesting that our nation's policy towards poverty is to let the poor "fight each other for a handful of crumbs"?

in those words? No. Hell, it may just be she's the only one calling us out on it. But to deny that we don't have a wealth divide in this country that boils down to "fark the poor" is woefully ignorant of reality


To believe the impetus of the wealth divide is to (as you say) "f*ck the poor" goes beyond typical ignorance and imbeds itself firmly in the echo chambers of partisan political rhetoric.
 
2013-11-19 10:22:10 AM  

Lucky LaRue: Three Crooked Squirrels: Lucky LaRue: "The suggestion that we have become a country where those living in poverty fight each other for a handful of crumbs tossed off the tables of the very wealthy is fundamentally wrong."

Do you know what makes this so "fundamentally wrong"?  Because nobody is suggesting it except a hyperbolic politician with grandiose visions of the White House pandering to her base.

Are you serious?

Can you show me one example of anyone but Elizabeth Warren suggesting that our nation's policy towards poverty is to let the poor "fight each other for a handful of crumbs"?


In those exact words?  No.  In policy, yes.

Wealthy Republicans who accept a farm bill that grants them or their families giant subsidies, but cut food stamp benefits is an example.  Especially when the idea is that charities will pick up the slack.
 
2013-11-19 10:23:59 AM  
She's right. Using Chained CPI is bullsh*t.

We need to raise taxes on the rich NOW. Why? Because f*ck them that's why.
 
2013-11-19 10:24:16 AM  

Lucky LaRue: To believe the impetus of the wealth divide is to (as you say) "f*ck the poor" goes beyond typical ignorance and imbeds itself firmly in the echo chambers of partisan political rhetoric.


Considering that we have one major party who has stopped at nothing to slash budgets for programs whose sole purpose is to help the poor and needy, I'm not quite sure "fark the poor" is really just partisan political rhetoric
 
2013-11-19 10:24:22 AM  

Lucky LaRue: somedude210: Lucky LaRue: Can you show me one example of anyone but Elizabeth Warren suggesting that our nation's policy towards poverty is to let the poor "fight each other for a handful of crumbs"?

in those words? No. Hell, it may just be she's the only one calling us out on it. But to deny that we don't have a wealth divide in this country that boils down to "fark the poor" is woefully ignorant of reality

To believe the impetus of the wealth divide is to (as you say) "f*ck the poor" goes beyond typical ignorance and imbeds itself firmly in the echo chambers of partisan political rhetoric.


It's not to "f*ck the poor," it's to increase their own wealth.  The way they pursue that goal often includes f*cking over the poor (and middle class)

So, screwing the non-wealthy is more like a byproduct of the drive for rich people to get richer.
 
2013-11-19 10:26:29 AM  
Please stop calling people hero's for saying stuff

This isnt the Soviet Union. If it was then yes, the hero tag would be appropriate because you can get a bullet in your head for saying something bad about the party or the government.
 
2013-11-19 10:27:31 AM  

Lucky LaRue: somedude210: Lucky LaRue: Can you show me one example of anyone but Elizabeth Warren suggesting that our nation's policy towards poverty is to let the poor "fight each other for a handful of crumbs"?

in those words? No. Hell, it may just be she's the only one calling us out on it. But to deny that we don't have a wealth divide in this country that boils down to "fark the poor" is woefully ignorant of reality

To believe the impetus of the wealth divide is to (as you say) "f*ck the poor" goes beyond typical ignorance and imbeds itself firmly in the echo chambers of partisan political rhetoric.


Yes, at the top, it's much more 'f*ck everyone but myself'.  If that should include poor people, so be it, but they'll throw the occasional crumb out to a charity or better yet donate a bunch of money to a university so they can name a building after themselves so everyone can know "hey that's a smarmy douche who bought a building and here's his sh*tty portrait."
 
2013-11-19 10:32:39 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: It's not to "f*ck the poor," it's to increase their own wealth.  The way they pursue that goal often includes f*cking over the poor (and middle class)

So, screwing the non-wealthy is more like a byproduct of the drive for rich people to get richer.


The campaign rhetoric is very much "f*ck the poor" and it has been since the 80's when we were all told tall tales of Laquisha the Cadillac driving welfare queen that pumps babies out as fast as she can for more of that sweet welfare cash.
 
2013-11-19 10:36:42 AM  
That's several hundred billion dollars worth of crumbs annually, senator - not counting state-level spending, and my state spends more in a year just on Medicaid than the entire budgets of about 45 other states.

Lucky LaRue: Do you know what makes this so "fundamentally wrong"? Because nobody is suggesting it except a hyperbolic politician with grandiose visions of the White House pandering to her base.


Yeah, this.

If she's so concerned about poverty, she could do her bit by paying her interns.

At least Bernie Sanders puts his money where his mouth is.
 
2013-11-19 10:44:40 AM  

sammyk: Lionel Mandrake: It's not to "f*ck the poor," it's to increase their own wealth.  The way they pursue that goal often includes f*cking over the poor (and middle class)

So, screwing the non-wealthy is more like a byproduct of the drive for rich people to get richer.

The campaign rhetoric is very much "f*ck the poor" and it has been since the 80's when we were all told tall tales of Laquisha the Cadillac driving welfare queen that pumps babies out as fast as she can for more of that sweet welfare cash.


That's true.  The "screw everyone else" idea is definitely more obvious in recent years.  The very, very rich have managed to convince the struggling middle-class that able-bodied, parasitic welfare leeches are responsible for their problems, not the super-rich who shipped their relatively well-paying blue collar jobs to China or India so they can get even richer.

IOW:

paulboylan.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-11-19 10:45:50 AM  

Gulper Eel: That's several hundred billion dollars worth of crumbs annually, senator - not counting state-level spending, and my state spends more in a year just on Medicaid than the entire budgets of about 45 other states.

Lucky LaRue: Do you know what makes this so "fundamentally wrong"? Because nobody is suggesting it except a hyperbolic politician with grandiose visions of the White House pandering to her base.

Yeah, this.

If she's so concerned about poverty, she could do her bit by paying her interns.

At least Bernie Sanders puts his money where his mouth is.


Does this somehow invalidate her claims?
 
2013-11-19 10:48:43 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: sammyk: Lionel Mandrake: It's not to "f*ck the poor," it's to increase their own wealth.  The way they pursue that goal often includes f*cking over the poor (and middle class)

So, screwing the non-wealthy is more like a byproduct of the drive for rich people to get richer.

The campaign rhetoric is very much "f*ck the poor" and it has been since the 80's when we were all told tall tales of Laquisha the Cadillac driving welfare queen that pumps babies out as fast as she can for more of that sweet welfare cash.

That's true.  The "screw everyone else" idea is definitely more obvious in recent years.  The very, very rich have managed to convince the struggling middle-class that able-bodied, parasitic welfare leeches are responsible for their problems, not the super-rich who shipped their relatively well-paying blue collar jobs to China or India so they can get even richer.

IOW:

[paulboylan.files.wordpress.com image 450x388]


I dont think its a matter of screwing over the other guy

I think its more denialism.

Kinda like what happened in the USSR.

It doesnt matter that the economic system is terrible, you cannot stray from it.
 
2013-11-19 10:50:37 AM  
Some one needs to tell Warren that we aren't living in a 1890's sweat shop era anymore.
 
2013-11-19 10:57:17 AM  

WTF Indeed: Some one needs to tell Warren that we aren't living in a 1890's sweat shop era anymore.


Yes we are.  The sweat shops just aren't in this country any more.

Nice manufacturing jobs were sent to Asia...where they're done it sweat shops.

The rich get richer.  Yay capitalism!
 
2013-11-19 11:00:23 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: Does this somehow invalidate her claims?


The vast amounts of money we already spend on anti-poverty programs is what invalidates her claims. That she fails to pay her interns despite her ample resources demonstrates that she's a hypocrite on top of it all.
 
2013-11-19 11:01:05 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: WTF Indeed: Some one needs to tell Warren that we aren't living in a 1890's sweat shop era anymore.

Yes we are.  The sweat shops just aren't in this country any more.

Nice manufacturing jobs were sent to Asia...where they're done it sweat shops.

The rich get richer.  Yay capitalism!


Capitalism has many flaws indeed. To replace it, something needs to come along that is better than it.

Socialist economies dont work. China, Vietnam, USSR, pretty much every former Communist state (except NK and Cuba) ditched it because of the horrible problems that it had with it.

With that in mind, what can we replace capitalism with?
 
2013-11-19 11:02:49 AM  

cman: With that in mind, what can we replace capitalism with?


A well-regulated capitalism?
 
2013-11-19 11:05:04 AM  

Gulper Eel: Lionel Mandrake: Does this somehow invalidate her claims?

The vast amounts of money we already spend on anti-poverty programs is what invalidates her claims. That she fails to pay her interns despite her ample resources demonstrates that she's a hypocrite on top of it all.


lol.

Would you care to explain how, exactly, that "invalidates her claims"?
 
2013-11-19 11:06:15 AM  

bdub77: She's right. Using Chained CPI is bullsh*t.

We need to raise taxes on the rich NOW. Why? Because f*ck them that's why.


Compelling
 
2013-11-19 11:06:42 AM  

cman: Socialist economies dont work. China, Vietnam, USSR, pretty much every former Communist state (except NK and Cuba) ditched it because of the horrible problems that it had with it.


No, Command economies, like the ones you listed, with central planning don't work. Democratic socialist economies, like the Nordic states do quite fine.
 
2013-11-19 11:07:12 AM  

somedude210: cman: With that in mind, what can we replace capitalism with?

A well-regulated capitalism?


Authoritarian capitalism works really well (as demonstrated by Nazi Germany and, in current times, by China).  I prefer the liberalism of our capitalism, though.  For all its faults, it does provide the best engine for innovation and growth, I think.
 
2013-11-19 11:07:30 AM  

cman: Lionel Mandrake: WTF Indeed: Some one needs to tell Warren that we aren't living in a 1890's sweat shop era anymore.

Yes we are.  The sweat shops just aren't in this country any more.

Nice manufacturing jobs were sent to Asia...where they're done it sweat shops.

The rich get richer.  Yay capitalism!

Capitalism has many flaws indeed. To replace it, something needs to come along that is better than it.

Socialist economies dont work. China, Vietnam, USSR, pretty much every former Communist state (except NK and Cuba) ditched it because of the horrible problems that it had with it.

With that in mind, what can we replace capitalism with?


I paraphrase Churchill:   Capitalism is the worst economic system except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

I should point out that I don't necessarily dislike capitalism, I dislike it as it has developed in America.
 
2013-11-19 11:07:44 AM  

cman: Socialist economies dont work.


*facepalm*
 
2013-11-19 11:08:05 AM  
"Chained CPI assumes that when prices rise, people switch to cheaper products"

Fine, now that the prices have risen so high people are down to 20/$1 ramen at the Dollar Tree, where do you suppose they go when the prices rise again?  Boil the dry catfood you can also get at DT in a 7lb bag?  Should they just eat it dry like a snack?

Do tell.
 
2013-11-19 11:08:09 AM  

cman: Lionel Mandrake: WTF Indeed: Some one needs to tell Warren that we aren't living in a 1890's sweat shop era anymore.

Yes we are.  The sweat shops just aren't in this country any more.

Nice manufacturing jobs were sent to Asia...where they're done it sweat shops.

The rich get richer.  Yay capitalism!

Capitalism has many flaws indeed. To replace it, something needs to come along that is better than it.

Socialist economies dont work. China, Vietnam, USSR, pretty much every former Communist state (except NK and Cuba) ditched it because of the horrible problems that it had with it.

With that in mind, what can we replace capitalism with?


You don't have to entirely "replace" capitalism.  It's more of determining what industries the private sector cannot run efficiently or if running it in the public sector would reduce costs drastically (see: healthcare).
 
2013-11-19 11:08:20 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: WTF Indeed: Some one needs to tell Warren that we aren't living in a 1890's sweat shop era anymore.

Yes we are.  The sweat shops just aren't in this country any more.

Nice manufacturing jobs were sent to Asia...where they're done it sweat shops.

The rich get richer.  Yay capitalism!


She's pretty clearly talking about this country unless she argued that we should send SS checks to China in 60 years when the current employees there reach retirement. I might've missed that
 
2013-11-19 11:08:26 AM  
Man, we need more politicians like her.
 
2013-11-19 11:08:45 AM  
Hey hey hey!  Those tables belong to our Job Creators, be nice to them!
 
2013-11-19 11:09:03 AM  
I'm fairly certain that Social Security is designed to be self-sustaining. There's no point in cutting to fix the deficit caused elsewhere. Dunno why she wants to expand them though. People aren't keen on paying more for something they'll get back later anyway.
 
2013-11-19 11:09:38 AM  

Madewithrealbitsofpanther: cman: Socialist economies dont work. China, Vietnam, USSR, pretty much every former Communist state (except NK and Cuba) ditched it because of the horrible problems that it had with it.

No, Command economies, like the ones you listed, with central planning don't work. Democratic socialist economies, like the Nordic states do quite fine.


In large part because they don't really practice much socialism
 
2013-11-19 11:09:39 AM  
Gulper Eel: 
The vast amounts of money we already spend on anti-poverty programs is what invalidates her claims. That she fails to pay her interns despite her ample resources demonstrates that she's a hypocrite on top of it all.

Yup, the vast amounts that have, at best, prevent people from falling further-and-further than they otherwise would have, down the social ladder, instead of actually helping them climb it.
 
2013-11-19 11:09:46 AM  
"The suggestion that we have become a country where those living in poverty fight each other for a handful of crumbs tossed off the tables of the very wealthy is fundamentally wrong,"

home.messiah.edu

/If I had time I'd have made an 'O RLY?' macro with a picture of someone at a soup kitchen
 
2013-11-19 11:09:47 AM  

Madewithrealbitsofpanther: cman: Socialist economies dont work. China, Vietnam, USSR, pretty much every former Communist state (except NK and Cuba) ditched it because of the horrible problems that it had with it.

No, Command economies, like the ones you listed, with central planning don't work. Democratic socialist economies, like the Nordic states do quite fine.


Thank you for the correction. You are absolutely correct that they are command economies.

However I am unsure if Democratic Socialism is a form of economics. Nordic lands are capitalist countries.
 
2013-11-19 11:10:01 AM  

Gulper Eel: Lionel Mandrake: Does this somehow invalidate her claims?

The vast amounts of money we already spend on anti-poverty programs is what invalidates her claims. That she fails to pay her interns despite her ample resources demonstrates that she's a hypocrite on top of it all.


That first point makes no sense.  The second is irrelevant.

You should have just said "no"
 
2013-11-19 11:10:07 AM  

Gulper Eel: Lionel Mandrake: Does this somehow invalidate her claims?

The vast amounts of money we already spend on anti-poverty programs is what invalidates her claims.


Yet poverty persists while a handful of individuals retain control of most of the wealth in the nation. Are you so naive that you think this situation can persist in a democracy?

That she fails to pay her interns despite her ample resources demonstrates that she's a hypocrite on top of it all.

herp
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-11-19 11:10:22 AM  

Gulper Eel: Lionel Mandrake: Does this somehow invalidate her claims?

The vast amounts of money we already spend on anti-poverty programs is what invalidates her claims. That she fails to pay her interns despite her ample resources demonstrates that she's a hypocrite on top of it all.


I assume by "vast" you mean "minuscule"?
 
2013-11-19 11:11:41 AM  

asquian: Man, we need more politicians like her.


I would be happier if we could throw Elizabeth Warren and Ted Cruz out and bring in people who want to get their hands dirty and work for change instead of posturing for headlines.
 
2013-11-19 11:11:55 AM  

skullkrusher: Madewithrealbitsofpanther: cman: Socialist economies dont work. China, Vietnam, USSR, pretty much every former Communist state (except NK and Cuba) ditched it because of the horrible problems that it had with it.

No, Command economies, like the ones you listed, with central planning don't work. Democratic socialist economies, like the Nordic states do quite fine.

In large part because they don't really practice much socialism


wat
 
2013-11-19 11:12:09 AM  

skullkrusher: Lionel Mandrake: WTF Indeed: Some one needs to tell Warren that we aren't living in a 1890's sweat shop era anymore.

Yes we are.  The sweat shops just aren't in this country any more.

Nice manufacturing jobs were sent to Asia...where they're done it sweat shops.

The rich get richer.  Yay capitalism!

She's pretty clearly talking about this country unless she argued that we should send SS checks to China in 60 years when the current employees there reach retirement. I might've missed that


WTF Indeed made the claim that sweatshops are gone, I pointed out that they've only moved.

I guess you did miss that.
 
2013-11-19 11:12:18 AM  

Lucky LaRue: asquian: Man, we need more politicians like her.

I would be happier if we could throw Elizabeth Warren and Ted Cruz out and bring in people who want to get their hands dirty and work for change instead of posturing for headlines.


Prepare to get flamed
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-11-19 11:12:52 AM  

skullkrusher: No, Command economies, like the ones you listed, with central planning don't work. Democratic socialist economies, like the Nordic states do quite fine.

In large part because they don't really practice much socialism


According to the definition of socialism the GOP uses they do.
 
2013-11-19 11:13:23 AM  

Lionel Mandrake: WTF Indeed: Some one needs to tell Warren that we aren't living in a 1890's sweat shop era anymore.

Yes we are.  The sweat shops just aren't in this country any more.

Nice manufacturing jobs were sent to Asia...where they're done it sweat shops.

The rich get richer.  Yay capitalism!


I would argue that more American manufacturing jobs are taken by American robots than by Chinese workers.
 
Displayed 50 of 599 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | 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