How Much More In Taxes Do Liberal Want Me To Pay?

[rtwngAvngr]

OK. Myth#1 - taxes are stealing.
only if against the commerce clause. Every state at some point agreed to the commerce clause to join the Union. Taxes are barter between the wealthy and poor for the things the Constitution allows for.. and yes, when "the general welfare" is mentioned in the Constitution, it means exactly that. Look it up in the Federalist Papers if you like. The fact that "general welfare" was paid for by small means in the 1800s and large means in the 1900s is not a double standard... it is a function of population density.
Myth#2 the government redistributes wealth.
No, it just is responsible for general welfare whenever the people themselves fail to provide it. You can start donating to the starving anytime you like, and I assure you government will back down.
Myth#3 these people are too lazy to eke out their own living.
The fundamental difference between the homeless and ordinary people is that the homeless don't have as solid of social networks to rely on. Many people would be homeless, but their parents or friends or church or other provide sustainence. Many people don't get sustainence from these groups, and that is the most common distinction. It has little at all to do with laziness or ability.
Myth#4 welfare recipients create a litter of genetically-diverse, future-deadbeats.
Most welfare recipients get off welfare as soon as they can, which is about a year. Very few welfare recipients are lifelong welfare recipients and even fewer pass it to their kids.

Do you believe these lies?

They sure as hell do redistribute income.

There sure as hell is a component of deadbeatism in the equation. You're a liar. Do you think we're stupid?

 

[MissileMan]

OK. Myth#1 - taxes are stealing.
only if against the commerce clause. Every state at some point agreed to the commerce clause to join the Union. Taxes are barter between the wealthy and poor for the things the Constitution allows for.. and yes, when "the general welfare" is mentioned in the Constitution, it means exactly that. Look it up in the Federalist Papers if you like. The fact that "general welfare" was paid for by small means in the 1800s and large means in the 1900s is not a double standard... it is a function of population density.

It doesn't say however to provide for the general welfare by strong-arming those with money.

Myth#2 the government redistributes wealth.
No, it just is responsible for general welfare whenever the people themselves fail to provide it. You can start donating to the starving anytime you like, and I assure you government will back down.

You can justify it in your own mind however you like, but taking money that I earned and giving it to someone who doesn't work is redistribution of wealth.

Myth#3 these people are too lazy to eke out their own living.
The fundamental difference between the homeless and ordinary people is that the homeless don't have as solid of social networks to rely on. Many people would be homeless, but their parents or friends or church or other provide sustainence. Many people don't get sustainence from these groups, and that is the most common distinction. It has little at all to do with laziness or ability.

The homeless and welfare recipients are two separate categories. Welfare recipients live quite comfortably in their abode that we tax payers provide for them.

Myth#4 welfare recipients create a litter of genetically-diverse, future-deadbeats.

On the contrary, they've contributed the phrase "my babies' daddies" to Americana.

Most welfare recipients get off welfare as soon as they can, which is about a year. Very few welfare recipients are lifelong welfare recipients and even fewer pass it to their kids.

Yes, the trend has improved in the last 10 years due to welfare reform, but 30% wind up on assistance longer than 1 year. See here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators05/ch2.htm#ch2_7

 

[Annie]

It doesn't say however to provide for the general welfare by strong-arming those with money.


You can justify it in your own mind however you like, but taking money that I earned and giving it to someone who doesn't work is redistribution of wealth.


The homeless and welfare recipients are two separate categories. Welfare recipients live quite comfortably in their abode that we tax payers provide for them.


On the contrary, they've contributed the phrase "my babies' daddies" to Americana.



Yes, the trend has improved in the last 10 years due to welfare reform, but 30% wind up on assistance longer than 1 year. See here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators05/ch2.htm#ch2_7

And while I will disagree with Missileman on many issues regarding faith, this is a classic of his on why we are both 'conservatives'...

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Well over 0.1% of Americans literally are starving to death, yes on the verge of death.

This is pure fiction that you just made up out of thin air.

The average american today has absolutely no clue whatsoever what the term "poverty" really means, unless they grew up during the depression or vacation in Mexico frequently. If we had genuine hunger--kids with visible ribs, vultures circling overhead--the media would be all over it, and there would be a tidal wave of donations.

There is relative poverty, but that is impossible to eliminate, even in Marxist nations such as Cuba and North Korea. If you hate relative poverty, okay whatever, but don't just lie through your teeth like Mitch Snyder.

That's why each and every Democrat President in the last 80 years has seen more net jobs in his presidency than each and every Republican President.

I am pretty sure you pulled this one out of your ass, too.

OK. Myth#1 - taxes are stealing.
only if against the commerce clause. Every state at some point agreed to the commerce clause to join the Union. Taxes are barter between the wealthy and poor for the things the Constitution allows for.. and yes, when "the general welfare" is mentioned in the Constitution, it means exactly that. Look it up in the Federalist Papers if you like. The fact that "general welfare" was paid for by small means in the 1800s and large means in the 1900s is not a double standard... it is a function of population density.

The original intention of the commerce clause was well-known for many, many years as a strict limit on the power of the federal government. And stop referring to the federalist papers as if you'd read them.

Myth#2 the government redistributes wealth.
No, it just is responsible for general welfare whenever the people themselves fail to provide it. You can start donating to the starving anytime you like, and I assure you government will back down.

What in the world are you going on about, liberals proudly cherish wealth redistribution as a centerpiece of what the government does.

BTW, what are you talking about when you say the government will back down? You probably think that before the New Deal, people starved to death in the streets, and that they just had to step in, because the public is too selfish to help their fellow man? If that's the mythology you suscribe to, I'd recommend starting [ame=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/089526725X/103-2573631-8811016?v=glance&n=283155]here.[/ame]

(Actually, the whole book is available free at olasky.com but the site isn't working for now)

The government will not step aside even if private charity was enough to provide a safety net (it was, and is). That's because social welfare isn't about helping the poor, it's about getting bigger budgets and more votes.

Myth#3 these people are too lazy to eke out their own living.
The fundamental difference between the homeless and ordinary people is that the homeless don't have as solid of social networks to rely on. Many people would be homeless, but their parents or friends or church or other provide sustainence. Many people don't get sustainence from these groups, and that is the most common distinction. It has little at all to do with laziness or ability.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Thinking that the wretchedly poor are saints is as foolish as thinking that the megarich are always villains. There are an awful lot of homeless people who either have mental problems, or just really don't care about anything but drinking.

 

[Annie]

Well over 0.1% of Americans literally are starving to death, yes on the verge of death.

The top 0.1% could feed them with one year's salary for over 1000 years.

Cry me a river.

Maybe they don't like to be taxed having a soul?

Seriously, links here! I'm embarrased that I just called you out on quoting others correctly!

 

[Annie]

Tell me, if they've given it to nonproducers, why are half a million starving to death?

If I don't have a clue, why am I the last poster on the other two threads I participated heavily in?

Why is money a pain as opposed to hunger?

Did I not mention how easy this would be?

Is the real pain in your a** a soul trying to reenter after you farted it out?

Where are you getting 500k from? Better put it up pretty quickly! How easy is it?

 

[catatonic]

Sorry just got back.

500,000 people starving to death according to a man who worked for a lot of food banks accross the country. He was competent enough to tell, and said there may even be a whole lot more, but that there definitely are 500,000. Anyone with enough experience in food banks will tell you. Just e-mail one.

Of course I already stated that the media won't report it, so there's no way I can find an Internet or TV source to cite.

Anyway, whether you believe it or no, I can demonstrate why there will be an increasing number to starve mathematically without fixing a problem as this thread progresses.

 

[Annie]

Sorry just got back.

500,000 people starving to death according to a man who worked for a lot of food banks accross the country. Anyone with enough experience in food banks will tell you. Just e-mail one.

Of course I already stated that the media won't report it, so there's no way I can find an Internet or TV source to cite.

You are putting it out as 'fact.' Cool. Now links to reputable source.

 

[catatonic]

Last I checked, facts aren't determined by whether the media reports them. It is a fact, in that its true. I also stated if you would just take some time and email a food bank, or talk to someone experienced with a lot of them, they could tell you. So that can be the source. I backed it up. I am a second-hand witness. There are second-hand witnesses in newspaper stories too.

Anyway I'm very sorry I am busy today and will hopefully address all your posts since my response to Missile Man when I am not so busy.

Regardless of my 500,000 figure, I will prove mathematically that the number just goes up and up until we do something to stop it.

Also, I'll give you something. I have plenty of knowledge about the homeless that's self-evident which will explain why anyway. I'll be glad to talk about it later. For now, just take it on faith.

 

[Annie]

Last I checked, facts aren't determined by whether the media reports them. It is a fact, in that its true. I also stated if you would just take some time and email a food bank, or talk to someone experienced with a lot of them, they could tell you. So that can be the source. I backed it up. I am a second-hand witness. There are second-hand witnesses in newspaper stories too.

Anyway I'm very sorry I am busy today and will hopefully address all your posts since my response to Missile Man when I am not so busy.

Regardless of my 500,000 figure, I will prove mathematically that the number just goes up and up until we do something to stop it.

which media? That's where the comes in...:scratch:

 

[pegwinn]

I guess this means the tax discussion is over?

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

500,000 people starving to death according to a man who worked for a lot of food banks accross the country. He was competent enough to tell, and said there may even be a whole lot more, but that there definitely are 500,000. Anyone with enough experience in food banks will tell you. Just e-mail one.

ahahahhahaha

1) You're quoting "some guy at a food bank"
2) You assure us he's competent, but competent how? Handing out cans of food? Or competent in setting up unbiased data analysis?
3) Having lots of people working at food banks tell you that people in america are literally starving means nothing. In fact it ought to be automatically suspect, since they may be either A) well intentioned but off base, or B) exaggerating to get more funding.

Of course I already stated that the media won't report it, so there's no way I can find an Internet or TV source to cite.

This is laughable rubbish. You're saying that TV and newspapers wouldn't cover that, are you insane? TV stations LIVE for that shit. They eat, sleep, and breathe that stuff. Anything emotional that tugs at your heartstrings. For example, see Geraldo Rivera during hurricane Katrina (those people actually did have something to bitch about). Do you think Geraldo and thousands of aspiring wannabe-Geraldos would get a hot tip about an american neighborhood with starving kids and just shrug their shoulders and say "Naaah. That wouldn't make a good news story. 'FAMINE DEATHS IN OUR BACKYARD' isn't something that would sell newspapers. Oh but wait, here's something about starving kids...in Africa. Now THIS, we have to cover!"

Anyway, whether you believe it or no, I can demonstrate why there will be an increasing number to starve mathematically without fixing a problem as this thread progresses.

No you can't. Unless you're the first Malthusian to ever have his predictions come true. We were supposed to experience global famines and massive resource shortages back in the 70's. It never happened, because the Malthusians never account for human ingenuity.

which media? That's where the comes in...:scratch:

You can't very well cite the media when your source is imaginary fairy-tale fiction. Instead what you do is throw out a number (or flurry of numbers), cross your fingers, and hope no one calls you on it.

Related tactics (which he is not guilty of, in all fairness) amongst the left: Taking a "more educated than thou" tone, and/or writing in Marxian-gibberish. It's where you take simple concepts but explain them with paragraph-long sentences. In other words, a smokescreen for bad ideas.

 

[MissileMan]

ahahahhahaha

1) You're quoting "some guy at a food bank"
2) You assure us he's competent, but competent how? Handing out cans of food? Or competent in setting up unbiased data analysis?
3) Having lots of people working at food banks tell you that people in america are literally starving means nothing. In fact it ought to be automatically suspect, since they may be either A) well intentioned but off base, or B) exaggerating to get more funding.

Or even stranger, how does putting people together with something to eat at a food bank equal starvation?

 

[catatonic]

First to respond to you all, and if better questions aren't asked (and there were a few great questions), I will start to respond to the better ones, as this took two hours to type, and I haven't even gotten to my own case yet.

Do you believe these lies?

They sure as hell do redistribute income.

There sure as hell is a component of deadbeatism in the equation. You're a liar. Do you think we're stupid?

Give one example where Democrat Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has supported redistributing income. I deny any.

Deadbeatism, in other words lazy or failing to pay debt. You guys kind of inadvertently confuse the issue of welfare and starving. Are starving people lazy. No! Just go to the third world, give anybody too poor to have any chance of moving up the ladder a $200-$1000 loan, even with 50% interest, and they'll repay 95% of the time. So the starving aren't lazy. American welfare recipients before safety nets were removed? Nope. That's a myth. Studies have shown time and time again that if given the opportunity to earn more than the welfare check, more than just most will take it. Even if they get a welfare check, if they are allowed to work at the same time for reasonable pay (and it's quite low), more than just most will do it.

I expected to be called everything possible on this board, but never a liar. I am not one. I haven't lied for years. I will back up anything I say. I will show why 500,000 is a sensible figure.

Originally Posted by catatonic
OK. Myth#1 - taxes are stealing.
only if against the commerce clause. Every state at some point agreed to the commerce clause to join the Union. Taxes are barter between the wealthy and poor for the things the Constitution allows for.. and yes, when "the general welfare" is mentioned in the Constitution, it means exactly that. Look it up in the Federalist Papers if you like. The fact that "general welfare" was paid for by small means in the 1800s and large means in the 1900s is not a double standard... it is a function of population density.
by MissileMan
It doesn't say however to provide for the general welfare by strong-arming those with money.
reply by catatonic
Who's stopping the top 0.1% from not paying taxes? They make the laws every congress to evade taxes with all types of shelters and flaky policies. I'd say they're strong-arming the lawmakers. If anything, they pay it voluntarily.


Quote:
Originally Posted by catatonic
Myth#2 the government redistributes wealth.
No, it just is responsible for general welfare whenever the people themselves fail to provide it. You can start donating to the starving anytime you like, and I assure you government will back down.
by MissileMan
You can justify it in your own mind however you like, but taking money that I earned and giving it to someone who doesn't work is redistribution of wealth.
by catatonic
wealth yes income no.. and the wealth is not interchangable to income.
wealth is generally an abundance, but by saying goods oh yeah sure. We pay farmers to not grow all this food and all I've ever asked in this thread is for the top 0.1% to care and for the bottom 0.1% to be fed. Sure... pay farmers to not grow all this food, but when you feed someone starving to death it must be an attack on the wealthy. If feeding the starving isn't the commerce clause, what is? I will gladly provide info later on to justify why this isn't about them not willing to work.

Quote:
Originally Posted by catatonic
Myth#3 these people are too lazy to eke out their own living.
The fundamental difference between the homeless and ordinary people is that the homeless don't have as solid of social networks to rely on. Many people would be homeless, but their parents or friends or church or other provide sustainence. Many people don't get sustainence from these groups, and that is the most common distinction. It has little at all to do with laziness or ability.
MissileMan wrote:
The homeless and welfare recipients are two separate categories. Welfare recipients live quite comfortably in their abode that we tax payers provide for them.
catatonic wrote:
Yes the welfare recipients live quite comfortably... the corporate welfare recipients, who buy $45 steaks and drive cadillacs.
Not all welfare recipients have a home.
You think living on (noncorporate) welfare is comfortable? Ask a recipient.
Homeless and welfare recipient are two separate categories. I'd like to clarify before it comes up that welfare recipients and those below the poverty line are too separate categories as well. I am in the extreme poverty class myself. I pay $99 rent. I'm extraordinarily comfortable. I know a lot of nice things, and feel I'm more comfortable than many rich people. I'm perfectly content. I don't ask for any income increase at all. All I want for myself is to be fed (watered clothed etc), be able to reach my highest fulfillment (which takes no money) and to be comfortable. All I want a higher income for is to spread love and protect humanity. Many people below the poverty line are comfortable. Many people in extreme poverty are too. The welfare recipients... no. They feel dependence, which alone is uncomfortable, and almost all want to work as soon as possible. Is their abode comfortable? I tried living in one of the cheapest apartments in downtown LA. No it was not comfortable. Ask me if I had anything in particular, running water, air conditioning, basic privacy, in fact I'll cut to the chase. I had a lockless door, a hard-to-open window, a bed many would cringe at, 7 floors of nonworking showers, and a couple of washing machines and dryers, coin operated of course. Almost all welfare recipients make under 3/4 of a minimum wage job.

2. AFDC figures from U.S. Social Security Administration. Food Stamp figures from U.S. Department of Agriculture, "Annual Historical Review of FNS Programs" and unpublished data.

3. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Poverty in the United States, Series P-60, No. 185, 1993.

Minimum wage won't put a roof over your head in an ever-growing area that's significant already where the cost to rent an apartment overcomes it entirely.

Comfortable... no.


Quote:
Originally Posted by catatonic
Myth#4 welfare recipients create a litter of genetically-diverse, future-deadbeats.
Missile Man, deleting my post that said most are off as soon as they can be, and typically it's a year, and virtually none live out life on it, wrote:
On the contrary, they've contributed the phrase "my babies' daddies" to Americana.
catatonic: Actually, that's a result of the way things are, as I keep saying I'll demonstrate.

"I can't remember the name of that thug I gave it up too and now I have a childless father.

Also, I have little respect for myself and even less for the poor little child I irresponsible brought into this world and doomed to poverty." First sentence a consequence of dense population. Second sentence a consequence of dense population. I'll demonstrate. Just wait...!



Quote:
Originally Posted by catatonic
Most welfare recipients get off welfare as soon as they can, which is about a year. Very few welfare recipients are lifelong welfare recipients and even fewer pass it to their kids.
Missile Man wrote:
Yes, the trend has improved in the last 10 years due to welfare reform, but 30% wind up on assistance longer than 1 year. See here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators05/ch2.htm#ch2_7
catatonic:
If you call people starving to death an improvement. So it's a statistical distribution, and of those 30% I'm willing to bet most still are doing everything to get back on their feet.

This is pure fiction that you just made up out of thin air.

Alright wise guy. Find a credible source that says it's not so. I absolutely did not make it up out of thin air. It's a fact... and I'm getting around to demonstrating it from two fronts, simple indisputable math from the most proven facts, and actually explaining what a homeless person's life is like. So hold your horses.

The average american today has absolutely no clue whatsoever what the term "poverty" really means, unless they grew up during the depression or vacation in Mexico frequently. If we had genuine hunger--kids with visible ribs, vultures circling overhead--the media would be all over it, and there would be a tidal wave of donations.

Funny... those who grew up in the depression have no problem with any of what I say here.

Funny... does the media cover disasters until they go away? Don't we still need money for Katrina and the Indonesian quake. Where is the media? The genocide in Darfur. Not much coverage. Dick Cheney even wore a Hawaiian shirt to a Jewish holocaust memorial on TV and said never again right in the middle of Darfur. He got plenty of coverage. Darfur got none. But simply starving... never. The media only draws attention to starvation related to large events. You'd think the natural consequences of our society would count, but that's too undefinable for them. The earthquake in Iran... not much coverage. Objective statistics to describe the situation... hardly ever. 1 billion people in the world go to bed hungry every night... did you hear that in the MSM? Now I have no idea why the media doesn't report this, but they don't. Maybe just no money in it.

There is relative poverty, but that is impossible to eliminate, even in Marxist nations such as Cuba and North Korea. If you hate relative poverty, okay whatever, but don't just lie through your teeth like Mitch Snyder.

I respectfully thought you must be refering to the paper itself instead of the content. Horror! Whoever Mitch Snyder is he is not the author.

Look. This article presents no actual evidence of any overestimation of the poor's value. The article talks about their black market assets as if that's a positive influence that makes them wealthier. Crime?

Did I ever say I hated relative poverty? People should be payed as much as it takes to motivate their working as hard as they could work for more pay, for a useful job of course. I've said nothing about redistribution of income, just the general welfare. Just keeping someone alive!

Anyway I've already stated I'm very comfortable in the extreme poverty bracket myself. Actual relative poverty is possible to eliminate, it's called eventually getting rid of money, automating all the undesirable tasks with robots, one world government, only a peacekeeping army, treating criminals for the mental illness that is truly their condition, a global leisure class where the geniuses are not stopped by having to earn a living from making every discovery and artistic creation and entertainment there can be, and several other things that just get ignored and brushed aside. It's calling. Put one ice-water-splashing fact accross my butterfly-animated mind to disappoint me.

I am pretty sure you pulled this one out of your ass, too.

Oh, what's your source against it, whatever you are refering to?



The original intention of the commerce clause was well-known for many, many years as a strict limit on the power of the federal government. And stop referring to the federalist papers as if you'd read them.

What in the world are you going on about, liberals proudly cherish wealth redistribution as a centerpiece of what the government does.

Harry Reid has never supported income redistribution. As for wealth distribution, find me one time when he emphasized wealth distribution over creating opportunity.

Challenge to the whole world to find one case.

BTW, what are you talking about when you say the government will back down? You probably think that before the New Deal, people starved to death in the streets, and that they just had to step in, because the public is too selfish to help their fellow man? If that's the mythology you suscribe to, I'd recommend starting here.

(Actually, the whole book is available free at olasky.com but the site isn't working for now)

The government will not step aside even if private charity was enough to provide a safety net (it was, and is). That's because social welfare isn't about helping the poor, it's about getting bigger budgets and more votes.

I'll withhold comment until I've digested enough of the book that I can argue I've formed a conclusion.

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Thinking that the wretchedly poor are saints is as foolish as thinking that the megarich are always villains. There are an awful lot of homeless people who either have mental problems, or just really don't care about anything but drinking.

Wait 'til I get to the part where I describe the homeless!

ahahahhahaha

1) You're quoting "some guy at a food bank"

An intelligent guy who knew a lot, who had worked for several food banks and elsewhere.

2) You assure us he's competent, but competent how? Handing out cans of food? Or competent in setting up unbiased data analysis?

Well, this is a good question. He saw a great many people starving to death in each of many cities he went to, and I kept pushing the issue and yes bones were sticking out, his understanding of concepts was just fine, he loved to talk about things like the city budget and demographics... for instance he discussed the rate at which people were moving in and how many aqueducts they had to build to accomodate them in water, and could give me a figure to understand how this affected the budget. He'd give detailed weather forecasts that he understood. He understood long-term city trends. He could explain why a local Macey's was going out of business. He talked to fellow food bank workers, and said there's an agreement. No he didn't appear to be the brightest guy on the block. Isn't what I stated here sufficient? He clearly knows enough math to give a floor, and enough sense to identify those on the verge of death. As for bias, he never said a word about any political party or even any principle held any more by any party than any other. He only talked about things that everyone would agree on. He never pushed any agenda on anyone. He didn't even say he wanted anyone to do anything. I didn't say a word to him about my political persuasions either, as I do in all my most professional relationships, except I did raise concerns about starving people to be fair. What else can I say against his having a bias? He never presented any. He only talked about this at all because I brought it all up through questioning him about what he'd done. I asked him why some states can feed all their people and some can't. He said it's very complicated and left it at that.

3) Having lots of people working at food banks tell you that people in america are literally starving means nothing. In fact it ought to be automatically suspect, since they may be either A) well intentioned but off base, or B) exaggerating to get more funding.

What right or reason do you have for suspecting them on A or B? Would you call the peace corps or American Red Cross A or B? What's the difference?

A) What segregates them from sanity? It's like demeaning the food not bombs club. Oh they want to lower military spending and feed people they know are hungry, and in fact they just feed them themselves. Are these people of lower intelligence? No. Are they higher? No. Offbase. How? They go to college and can be CEOs. Are they mentally ill? Not any more than others. Demented from working in a food bank... yeah right. They follow the basic right to life our founding father's established... they are with it.

B) Please see the bottom of this post.

This is laughable rubbish. You're saying that TV and newspapers wouldn't cover that, are you insane?

Oh yeah I'm insane. Are you insane? Pleased to meet me insane.

TV stations LIVE for that shit. They eat, sleep, and breathe that stuff. Anything emotional that tugs at your heartstrings. For example, see Geraldo Rivera during hurricane Katrina (those people actually did have something to bitch about). Do you think Geraldo and thousands of aspiring wannabe-Geraldos would get a hot tip about an american neighborhood with starving kids and just shrug their shoulders and say "Naaah. That wouldn't make a good news story. 'FAMINE DEATHS IN OUR BACKYARD' isn't something that would sell newspapers. Oh but wait, here's something about starving kids...in Africa. Now THIS, we have to cover!"

Well that just shows what you know. Incidentally, did you see one person starving to death in that whole scenario? Didn't think so.

No you can't. Unless you're the first Malthusian to ever have his predictions come true. We were supposed to experience global famines and massive resource shortages back in the 70's. It never happened, because the Malthusians never account for human ingenuity.

Wasn't that a mistaken calculation about an oil crash that had nothing to do with human ingenuity or Malthusianism? Incidentally, in the 70s we had Keynesian economics, with 30 years of awesome prosperity. Now we're doing this globalisation, and dozens of countries have already defaulted on their currency and had to be bailed out by other countries. And these peak oil guys don't realize that oil fields regenerate. So was the fact that the oil wells in Kuwait regenerated due to human ingenuity or dumb luck? Anyway...

You can't very well cite the media when your source is imaginary fairy-tale fiction. Instead what you do is throw out a number (or flurry of numbers), cross your fingers, and hope no one calls you on it.

That was red state rules tactic... hoping I wouldn't call him on the insanely low percentage necessary for even the largest welfare systems.

Nobody on this board will disprove it. I will demonstrate much.

Related tactics (which he is not guilty of, in all fairness) amongst the left: Taking a "more educated than thou" tone, and/or writing in Marxian-gibberish. It's where you take simple concepts but explain them with paragraph-long sentences. In other words, a smokescreen for bad ideas.

Actually this is how I write to my Senator, this is how he writes back, and this is how the US code looks. It's just rigor for clarity, as these big conversations are rather important.

Or even stranger, how does putting people together with something to eat at a food bank equal starvation?

A good solid question. Because so many food banks are closed except a few days or very often even once a week. And assuming keeping track is a problem, it often requires lots of travel to get to an open one. And in many areas, and here's what's completely devastating to you, all a homeless man can ever get is expired milk and expired eggs and nothing else, not even bread. Have you ever tried expired milk? It can make you throw up and how do you store it anyway. Expired eggs? Barf... literally. This should completely devastate you know. So are they exaggerating to get more funding. No. Are you devastated?

 

[nt250]

This should completely devastate you know. So are they exaggerating to get more funding. No. Are you devastated?

Main Entry: 1cata·ton·ic
Pronunciation: "kat-&-'tän-ik
Function: adjective
: of, relating to, being, or affected by schizophrenia characterized especially by a marked psychomotor disturbance that may involve stupor or mutism, negativism, rigidity, purposeless excitement, and inappropriate or bizarre posturing —cata·ton·i·cal·ly /-i-k(&-)lE/ adverb


At least you're self aware.:cof:

 

[catatonic]

An undercover agent I know did a study on the homeless by actually being one for a few months last year where he first of all found that almost all homeless want to work. His name is not to be mentioned on the Internet. So yes I am protecting my source. If I was a reporter, you'd have a case against me. I'm just a message board poster. If you want my real name I can give it. Anyway this is virtually all self-evident, so it really doesn't matter.

The homeless... their biggest problem is they immediately need money. How do we get money in today's world... a job or going entreprenuer is basically the only way.

But lets list the reality of them getting a job.
1. They have hygiene problems. Even at a shelter, people have limited access to bathrooms and no toiletries. They have to sleep in front of each other. Say what? Bring your own toiletries. They're confiscated. How much worse does the guy who doesn't have a shelter have it? The country music star Jewel had to live in a car for over a year. But if you saw her in that condition, would she get a job?
2. Phone address schedule transportation...
There are lots of things that they just don't have to put on a resume and won't do them any good. How many employers go down the list of resumes and say, he looks good... what's his number? None? Next! Address same. No alarm clock. Can be very restless at night sleeping on concrete. Schedule... so the food bank opens in the middle of work... how will they eat... especially if its accross town. There can be lots of food insecurity in general making it very hard just to function. Transportation... how do they get bus fare? Lack of ID. No problem... oh wait yeah it's a problem. How do they get a resume in the first place?
3. Many people are just snooty and won't hire a homeless guy ever. Try the mall.
4. Heartbreak. They often are in deep emotional heartbreak over loss of loved ones. Not only that... but they are deeply troubled by not being able to locate their own family. Friends...keeping adding .s .......
5. Paranoia and mental illness. Mental illness because it is a fundamental right to life that is shoved in their face every minute. And also some people develop mental illness and then have to move out in the street. Paranoia because it is a very insecure situation. Not only do homeless people kill each other, but corporations might kill them too. They do fight each other. I have no proof of this last assertion about companies, just that I heard a company in Seattle was offering homeless people including this agent, to sleep in their vans. But the agent saw that there were several sleeping bags in one van and no people. The agent got out of the van and hid in the field for a few hours. A guy locked the van then. He disclosed his hidden self. The guy was totally spooked. It could be a black market for body parts... over 2000 American companies sell them.
6. What if they're not even educable, their attitudinous, or addicted to drugs as well. What if all that and they have credit card debt. How exactly do you go about saying, "We shouldn't give them a crutch, because that breeds dependency." They are dependent. They need a crutch. But unskilled? These people are more skilled than a typical worker, just as those on welfare are on average more skilled than a typical worker.

Here are five I'd opine myself, but this is just opinion:

7. Ex-Felons also can't get a job, but the homeless in general are law-abiding.
8. Some have handicaps.
9. The real homeless don't often beg.
10. Who cares about the homeless?
11. Those homeless that get medical prescriptions... it's just to keep them asleep.
12. They're just kept out of trends people use to recognize and hire each other.

But back to the actual study... several solutions... the main one was simply to provide a 24-hour job line for the homeless to always be able to get a job... the government can do this fine... and to build minihouses that are like shacks that can be bought... and to make a homeless free busfare card or at least 20 cents. I've ridden the bus/metro/train for several years... it's a very unfrauded system. There's a loophole that if you bring a cane on a bus in some places you get a discount... I've only seen it abused once in my life. If someone is desperate enough to try to defraud the bus, they can't pay anyway. And that's the point. And in big cities its 100% strict.

In my next post I will explain the cause of homelessness and starvation. Then I will still have a lot more up my sleeve.

 

[red states rule]

Who Really Pays Income Taxes?

by Andrew Chamberlain


Do wealthy taxpayers pay their fair share of taxes? Polls consistently show Americans believe they don't. But are they right?

The U.S. Treasury Department recently released a memo (PDF) that sheds some light on the issue:

...[A] small group of higher-income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year. In 2002, the latest year of available data, the top 5 percent of taxpayers paid more than one-half (53.8 percent) of all individual income taxes, but reported roughly one-third (30.6 percent) of income.

From the memo, here's the projected breakdown of income tax payments by income group for 2005:

Top Top Top Top Top Bottom
1% 5% 10% 25% 50% 50%
Percent of income taxes 33.7 54.1 65.8 83.6 96.4 3.6

Percent on income 16.5 31.0 42.1 64.7 86.1 13.9

With the wealthiest 1 percent of taxpayers paying roughly 33.7 percent of income taxes and earn just 16.5 percent of income, it's hard to argue they're not paying a fair share by any reasonable definition of "fair."

Be sure to check out the Tax Foundation's summary of the most recent income tax data for more.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/341.html

 

[MtnBiker]

This just in;

Hamburgers at fast food restaurants are laced with mind controlling drugs. I know this to be fact. An industry insider has revealed the infromation to me, some guy who works at Joe's Flop and Burn Burger Shack told me so.



Resume thread.

 

[MissileMan]

This just in;

Hamburgers at fast food restaurants are laced with mind controlling drugs. I know this to be fact. An industry insider has revealed the infromation to me, some guy who works at Joe's Flop and Burn Burger Shack told me so.



Resume thread.

A reliable industry expert!

 

[Hobbit]

And I have a friend that went out one day and offered 10 homeless people a month's rent, a week's worth of clothes, and enough food to last until his first paycheck, but they turned him down because all this came with the condition that they work for him. They all turned him down.