Poverty?? Fool Me Once...And Again

[G.T.]

If they are unaware they obviously aren't looking for employment.I wonder if they listed those jobs at the welfare office if it would help.....probably not.

Of course, you only find that obvious because you obviously haven't thought too hard about it.

I do know if I was looking for a job I damn sure would have found them.
These people dont want to work,they want a free hand out.

Oh fucking stoppit dude.

 

[Jarhead]

On Sunday, Governor Cuomo of New York announced that the Federal Government had granted 27 million dollars to NY to create 5,000 jobs to help with the cleanup froim Sandy.

36 hours after it was announced on all local TV stations, radio stations and printed in all newspapers, only 800 people had applied for these jobs.

So what were you saying about overseas jobs?

I didn't even have to think of *all* the reasons that this post was so dick, but here's one more -

36 hours? Coming off of a Holiday Weekend where many travel across the Country to be with their loved ones for the one or two times a year that they are?

Yea, 36 hours. Today is Wednesday. It's only 9:56 a.m. ET.

So these "poor" people can afford to travel across the country?

yeah....and they are not in touch with what is supposed to be MOST important to them...the job market.

"I will wait until my "vacation" is over before I look for a job again."

 

[blastoff]

Again- simple solution.

Bring back the jobs from overseas and pay working people a fair wage.

Then they won't go to government looking for stuff.

LOL...sounds like the makings of a great PSA!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The typical “poor” American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasn’t hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.

Is that really something to grumble about? If the above is the case, which is unlikely, shouldn't that be cited as a positive?

You know I once said that the goal of conservatives is to make the poor genuinely poor, to take away any help they get from the government, to make the poor feel poor, to restore the pain of poverty to poverty.

This thread proves my point.

you have spun her point in an effort to insult the conservative thinking. It is a waste of time and quite disingenuous...not to mention a bit on the immature side.

The point is, we would be thrilled if the poor were able to acheive a higher standard of living. But to say "they are comforatble, but not comfortable enough so the governemnt needs to make them even MORE comfortable" is a premise we disagreee with as we can not continue to increase their standard of living without going broke as a country.

The minimum wage peaked in 1969, adjusted for inflation.

 

[G.T.]

If they are unaware they obviously aren't looking for employment.I wonder if they listed those jobs at the welfare office if it would help.....probably not.

Of course, you only find that obvious because you obviously haven't thought too hard about it.

You obviously do not understand the sense of urgency that is supposed to be associated with being unemployed.

And seeing as you are (or were) unemployed for a long period of time, I think you have nicely defined yourself for the rest of us.

LOL...I personally offered you an opportunity to make good honest money...told you what to do and let me know when you are ready....that was what.....5 months ago? Yet I never heard from you.

I am done with this conversation with you. I thought you were a little different. I misjudged another.

Wait what?

You have me confused with someone else, dipshit. I was *not* unemployed, and make a LOT of money doing what I do, and YOU told me when I had spoken about looking for side gigs of becoming a notary public.

You have your facts crooked.

I am happily married, gamefully employed and have been since I was 15, own my own home and make plenty of money. So, foot mouth.

 

[Jarhead]

You just agreed with his statement that Standards change - and even offered a supporting example.

You only disagreed with what you THOUGHT you read, but not what he typed. This is more *anecdotal* evidence that you're just here to fill an o.c.d., that which is "argue and be right."

Yo....

"Standards" is a term that is relative to the time.

Standards is a term that allows a comparison......like apples to apples.

You, nor he, has been able to back up his statement.

As for your continued insults to who I am and what I am....if it makes you feel "big"....go for it.

Yo....

He said standards change.

He was right. They do. you proved it.

Once, the "standard" was food and shelter.

Once, the "standard" was electricity and running water.

The "standards" change, and you agree but want so badly to disagree, fucking WEIRD.

You jumped in the middle and now talking out of your ass...

This is what he said:

"blieve it or not, as civilization advances, economic standards change. I am not surprised you can't understand that."

He is wrong. Economic standards DONT change.

Standard of living changes.....but ones economnic standards do not change due to advances in civilization.

Unless...of course...you do not understand what "economic standards" refers to.

 

[Jarhead]

Of course, you only find that obvious because you obviously haven't thought too hard about it.

You obviously do not understand the sense of urgency that is supposed to be associated with being unemployed.

And seeing as you are (or were) unemployed for a long period of time, I think you have nicely defined yourself for the rest of us.

LOL...I personally offered you an opportunity to make good honest money...told you what to do and let me know when you are ready....that was what.....5 months ago? Yet I never heard from you.

I am done with this conversation with you. I thought you were a little different. I misjudged another.

Wait what?

You have me confused with someone else, dipshit. I was *not* unemployed, and make a LOT of money doing what I do, and YOU told me when I had spoken about looking for side gigs of becoming a notary public.

You have your facts crooked.

I am happily married, gamefully employed and have been since I was 15, own my own home and make plenty of money. So, foot mouth.

Dipshit?

Nice.

 

[G.T.]

Yo....

"Standards" is a term that is relative to the time.

Standards is a term that allows a comparison......like apples to apples.

You, nor he, has been able to back up his statement.

As for your continued insults to who I am and what I am....if it makes you feel "big"....go for it.

Yo....

He said standards change.

He was right. They do. you proved it.

Once, the "standard" was food and shelter.

Once, the "standard" was electricity and running water.

The "standards" change, and you agree but want so badly to disagree, fucking WEIRD.

You jumped in the middle and now talking out of your ass...

This is what he said:

"blieve it or not, as civilization advances, economic standards change. I am not surprised you can't understand that."

He is wrong. Economic standards DONT change.

Standard of living changes.....but ones economnic standards do not change due to advances in civilization.

Unless...of course...you do not understand what "economic standards" refers to.

Now - mind you - you're the guy who brought up electricity and running water.

And this is why it's funny, and this is why I interject - it's fulfilling you and I'm happy to do it but - - - - - the only reason I do is in hope that ya stop with all of that off-putting churlish old jaded Republican nonsense.

The mean cynical Republican is why Obama is back into office.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Since it was so very successful in the election, why stop now? “Class warfare” is the gift that keeps on giving for progressives!

If you voted for Obama, heck, you’ll have no trouble swallowing the latest foray into the wonderful world of collectivist propaganda. After all, how much smarter could you have become in one month?



1. “To the average American, the word “poverty” means significant material hardship and need. It means lack of a warm, dry home, recurring hunger and malnutrition, no medical care, worn-out clothes for the children. The mainstream media reinforce this view: The typical TV news story on poverty features a homeless family with kids living in the back of a van.

2. But poverty as the federal government defines it differs greatly from these images…. According to the government’s own data, the typical poor family lives in a house or apartment that’s not only in good repair but is larger than the homes of the average non-poor person in England, France or Germany.

The typical “poor” American experiences no material hardships, receives medical care whenever needed, has an ample diet and wasn’t hungry for even a single day the previous year. According to the US Department of Agriculture, the nutritional quality of the diets of poor children is identical to that of upper middle class kids.






3. Previously, a family of four was considered poor if cash income was less than $22,800. The new definition sharply jerks up this threshold, especially in large cities. Now, a family of four with full medical insurance, living in Oakland, can be considered “poor” if its yearly pre-tax income is below $42,500. In Washington, DC, the figure is $40,300; in Boston, $39,500; in New York, $37,900.

4. … new poverty thresholds are linked to an “escalator” that will boost them faster than inflation year after year. The income thresholds will rise automatically in direct proportion to any rise in the actual living standards of the average American.

5. This means it will be difficult to reduce poverty in America no matter how much the living conditions of the poor actually improve. Imagine a sprinter in a race where the finish line is moved back four feet every time the runner takes a step.

6. Look at it this way: If the real income of every single American were to double overnight, the new measure would show no drop in poverty because the poverty-income thresholds also would double.






7. The goal of fighting poverty is no longer about meeting physical needs; instead it has been covertly shifted to equalizing incomes, or “spreading the wealth.”… the new government report on “poverty” is merely an advertising tool for expanding the welfare state.” ‘Poverty’ like we’ve never seen it - NYPOST.com





This is a stake through the heart of our once great nation:
Too many are simply not smart enough to realize that they are being scammed, that their good intentions are being used to invest a view that we need to help imaginary “poor,” by pretending that they exist. And, golly, ‘big daddy’ government must be the answer!

Thanks to the Obama voters, the Pod People, America will never again honor achievement, self-reliance, or success.

The reader of this and all of PC's threads might want to consider the modern definition of "sophism", to wit: Reasoning that appears sound but is misleading or fallacious, as well as the logical fallacies recuring in her 'work' (such as appeals to emotion, Slippery Slope, Bandwagon Appeals, Dogmatism and many more).

If one wants to consider "class warfare" they would gain some insight into the efforts by the GOP to 'reform' the tax code, in particular those ideas which are dumbed down or made to sound pleasing without critical or any examination, i.e., the 'fair' tax, the flat tax, the death tax. It is all bullshit and made to make the rich richer at the expense of the rest of us.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I didn't even have to think of *all* the reasons that this post was so dick, but here's one more -

36 hours? Coming off of a Holiday Weekend where many travel across the Country to be with their loved ones for the one or two times a year that they are?

Yea, 36 hours. Today is Wednesday. It's only 9:56 a.m. ET.

So these "poor" people can afford to travel across the country?

Do you think that everyone who is unemployed has no savings? No family? No friends?

So these people are willing to spend their limited resources on travel?
If thats the case they deserve zero support from anyone.
Your arguments mark you as a youngster with no experience in life.

 

[G.T.]

You obviously do not understand the sense of urgency that is supposed to be associated with being unemployed.

And seeing as you are (or were) unemployed for a long period of time, I think you have nicely defined yourself for the rest of us.

LOL...I personally offered you an opportunity to make good honest money...told you what to do and let me know when you are ready....that was what.....5 months ago? Yet I never heard from you.

I am done with this conversation with you. I thought you were a little different. I misjudged another.

Wait what?

You have me confused with someone else, dipshit. I was *not* unemployed, and make a LOT of money doing what I do, and YOU told me when I had spoken about looking for side gigs of becoming a notary public.

You have your facts crooked.

I am happily married, gamefully employed and have been since I was 15, own my own home and make plenty of money. So, foot mouth.

Dipshit?

Nice.

It fit quite well, for someone attempting to paint me as unemployed and coming to you for work - when I've been in the same successful job for close to ten years and make a fine living. Quite insulting, actually, in that it's both incorrect and was also used to somehow make me feel bad.

 

[Jarhead]

Yo....

He said standards change.

He was right. They do. you proved it.

Once, the "standard" was food and shelter.

Once, the "standard" was electricity and running water.

The "standards" change, and you agree but want so badly to disagree, fucking WEIRD.

You jumped in the middle and now talking out of your ass...

This is what he said:

"blieve it or not, as civilization advances, economic standards change. I am not surprised you can't understand that."

He is wrong. Economic standards DONT change.

Standard of living changes.....but ones economnic standards do not change due to advances in civilization.

Unless...of course...you do not understand what "economic standards" refers to.

Now - mind you - you're the guy who brought up electricity and running water.

And this is why it's funny, and this is why I interject - it's fulfilling you and I'm happy to do it but - - - - - the only reason I do is in hope that ya stop with all of that off-putting churlish old jaded Republican nonsense.

The mean cynical Republican is why Obama is back into office.

I brought up electriocity and running water to explain to him how advances in civilization DO increase standard of living but have NO effect on "economic standards".

The rest of your post is meaningless and, in my eyes, a childish way to divert from a topic you are having an issue with.

 

[G.T.]

So these "poor" people can afford to travel across the country?

Do you think that everyone who is unemployed has no savings? No family? No friends?

So these people are willing to spend their limited resources on travel?
If thats the case they deserve zero support from anyone.
Your arguments mark you as a youngster with no experience in life.

No, on the contrary, you have no clue how they were able to travel or what their economic status is at all, period, just based on them being "unemployed."

You show your closed-mindedness. It's a symptom of being a jaded Conservative. I can understand, but it's not "reality."

 

[Moonglow]

I'm lucky to have enough money to drive to work all week.

 

[Jarhead]

Wait what?

You have me confused with someone else, dipshit. I was *not* unemployed, and make a LOT of money doing what I do, and YOU told me when I had spoken about looking for side gigs of becoming a notary public.

You have your facts crooked.

I am happily married, gamefully employed and have been since I was 15, own my own home and make plenty of money. So, foot mouth.

Dipshit?

Nice.

It fit quite well, for someone attempting to paint me as unemployed and coming to you for work - when I've been in the same successful job for close to ten years and make a fine living. Quite insulting, actually, in that it's both incorrect and was also used to somehow make me feel bad.

As you said...I had you confused with someone else who WAS unemployed. It happens on a board where you are dealing with dozens of people you never met.

Most certainly did not warrant "dipshit"....but if that works for you, go for it.

 

[G.T.]

You jumped in the middle and now talking out of your ass...

This is what he said:

"blieve it or not, as civilization advances, economic standards change. I am not surprised you can't understand that."

He is wrong. Economic standards DONT change.

Standard of living changes.....but ones economnic standards do not change due to advances in civilization.

Unless...of course...you do not understand what "economic standards" refers to.

Now - mind you - you're the guy who brought up electricity and running water.

And this is why it's funny, and this is why I interject - it's fulfilling you and I'm happy to do it but - - - - - the only reason I do is in hope that ya stop with all of that off-putting churlish old jaded Republican nonsense.

The mean cynical Republican is why Obama is back into office.

I brought up electriocity and running water to explain to him how advances in civilization DO increase standard of living but have NO effect on "economic standards".

The rest of your post is meaningless and, in my eyes, a childish way to divert from a topic you are having an issue with.

Standards of living change economic standards, necessarily.

Every dollar that was previously unused for electricity and now is used for electricity - tells you something about my previous sentence.

Economically, money was once not used for things like "food," but food was hunted and caught. Now, the standard is that you go out and buy food. That is a shift in an Economic standard caused by a shift in a societal standard, and it's an example of why you're just being a ninny to have disagreed with him.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Of course, you only find that obvious because you obviously haven't thought too hard about it.

You obviously do not understand the sense of urgency that is supposed to be associated with being unemployed.

And seeing as you are (or were) unemployed for a long period of time, I think you have nicely defined yourself for the rest of us.

LOL...I personally offered you an opportunity to make good honest money...told you what to do and let me know when you are ready....that was what.....5 months ago? Yet I never heard from you.

I am done with this conversation with you. I thought you were a little different. I misjudged another.

Wait what?

You have me confused with someone else, dipshit. I was *not* unemployed, and make a LOT of money doing what I do, and YOU told me when I had spoken about looking for side gigs of becoming a notary public.

You have your facts crooked.

I am happily married, gamefully employed and have been since I was 15, own my own home and make plenty of money. So, foot mouth.

What exactly is "gamefully employed"?

 

[G.T.]

You obviously do not understand the sense of urgency that is supposed to be associated with being unemployed.

And seeing as you are (or were) unemployed for a long period of time, I think you have nicely defined yourself for the rest of us.

LOL...I personally offered you an opportunity to make good honest money...told you what to do and let me know when you are ready....that was what.....5 months ago? Yet I never heard from you.

I am done with this conversation with you. I thought you were a little different. I misjudged another.

Wait what?

You have me confused with someone else, dipshit. I was *not* unemployed, and make a LOT of money doing what I do, and YOU told me when I had spoken about looking for side gigs of becoming a notary public.

You have your facts crooked.

I am happily married, gamefully employed and have been since I was 15, own my own home and make plenty of money. So, foot mouth.

What exactly is "gamefully employed"?

It's a typo.

 

[Jarhead]

Now - mind you - you're the guy who brought up electricity and running water.

And this is why it's funny, and this is why I interject - it's fulfilling you and I'm happy to do it but - - - - - the only reason I do is in hope that ya stop with all of that off-putting churlish old jaded Republican nonsense.

The mean cynical Republican is why Obama is back into office.

I brought up electriocity and running water to explain to him how advances in civilization DO increase standard of living but have NO effect on "economic standards".

The rest of your post is meaningless and, in my eyes, a childish way to divert from a topic you are having an issue with.

Standards of living change economic standards, necessarily.

Every dollar that was previously unused for electricity and now is used for electricity - tells you something about my previous sentence.

Economically, money was once not used for things like "food," but food was hunted and caught. Now, the standard is that you go out and buy food. That is a shift in an Economic standard caused by a shift in a societal standard, and it's an example of why you're just being a ninny to have disagreed with him.

you jumped in the middle and completely missed the crux of the debate.

We were referring to economic standards as it pertains to comparing one class to another. Advances in civilzation will have no affect on that whatsoever.

 

[G.T.]

Dipshit?

Nice.

It fit quite well, for someone attempting to paint me as unemployed and coming to you for work - when I've been in the same successful job for close to ten years and make a fine living. Quite insulting, actually, in that it's both incorrect and was also used to somehow make me feel bad.

As you said...I had you confused with someone else who WAS unemployed. It happens on a board where you are dealing with dozens of people you never met.

Most certainly did not warrant "dipshit"....but if that works for you, go for it.

Yes, and here is the first post you admitted the mistake, still no apology and still no remorse for trying to use someone (else's) unemployment as a means to degrade them, albeit you got the wrong person - it was shameful. Warranted dipshit, fa sho.'