Poverty?? Fool Me Once...And Again

[G.T.]

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.

I think your newly defined parameters exascerbate his point.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

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.

I might believe that if you had typed "gaimfully"
Rather then admit ignorance you lied.
Tells me all I need to know about you.

 

[Jarhead]

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.'

It was an hoinest mistake and warrants an apology....so yes, I apologize. It was not an intentional mistake.

 

[G.T.]

What exactly is "gamefully employed"?

It's a typo.

I might believe that if you had typed "gaimfully"
Rather then admit ignorance you lied.
Tells me all I need to know about you.

Is this really the level that you get down at? To nitpick something like this, like really? do you think it's WORTH talking to someone who does such baby boy nonsense like that? Just curious. It tells me nothing about you, if we're being honest, except that you're pretty prissy & immature (here and now, anyways).

 

[G.T.]

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.'

It was an hoinest mistake and warrants an apology....so yes, I apologize. It was not an intentional mistake.

Good enough for a grown man, I take it back.

 

[Jarhead]

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.

I think your newly defined parameters exascerbate his point.

Wrong. Not newly defined parameters at all. I have not changed my position one iota nor have I moved the goal posts. I said at the beginning that economiuc standards dont change due to advances in civilization...and I still am saying the same thing. We can have advances in civilzation for thousands of years....but the economic standards of the poor will always be less than the economic standards of the middle class and thieirs will always be less than the economic standards of the upper class. There will always be a separation. If one needs to up the economic standards of the poor, then you are automatically increasing the economic standards of the middle class......and if that is done, then you no longer have a true indication of what the poor is....and that was the point of the OP....

 

[Jarhead]

It's a typo.

I might believe that if you had typed "gaimfully"
Rather then admit ignorance you lied.
Tells me all I need to know about you.

Is this really the level that you get down at? To nitpick something like this, like really? do you think it's WORTH talking to someone who does such baby boy nonsense like that? Just curious. It tells me nothing about you, if we're being honest, except that you're pretty prissy & immature (here and now, anyways).

I always thought it was gamefully employed until I was about 40 years old when my wife corrected me. I would probably still think it was if not for my wife.

 

[G.T.]

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.

I think your newly defined parameters exascerbate his point.

Wrong. Not newly defined parameters at all. I have not changed my position one iota nor have I moved the goal posts. I said at the beginning that economiuc standards dont change due to advances in civilization...and I still am saying the same thing. We can have advances in civilzation for thousands of years....but the economic standards of the poor will always be less than the economic standards of the middle class and thieirs will always be less than the economic standards of the upper class. There will always be a separation. If one needs to up the economic standards of the poor, then you are automatically increasing the economic standards of the middle class......and if that is done, then you no longer have a true indication of what the poor is....and that was the point of the OP....

But so glaringly obvious is that the economic standards of poor, rich and middle class do change - and pretty drastically at that. It can be disagreed with to a point, but it cannot be written as a proof at all.

 

[G.T.]

I might believe that if you had typed "gaimfully"
Rather then admit ignorance you lied.
Tells me all I need to know about you.

Is this really the level that you get down at? To nitpick something like this, like really? do you think it's WORTH talking to someone who does such baby boy nonsense like that? Just curious. It tells me nothing about you, if we're being honest, except that you're pretty prissy & immature (here and now, anyways).

I always thought it was gamefully employed until I was about 40 years old when my wife corrected me. I would probably still think it was if not for my wife.

I knew it was gainfully, and as a creature of habit still type out "game" because even when I had realized that I was hearing it wrong, "gamefully" still fits.

Herewegoagain must be really bored. T'is okay, I'm responding in-between trying to write this chorus and I am sort of getting writer's block.

 

[editec]

While it is a mathematical certainty that every society that is not perfectly eqalitarian WILL have folks at the bottom of the bell curve of wealth and at the top, too, that does NOT mean that nothing can ever change the quality of life experienced by everybody in that society.


A society in aggregate can get wealthier while the quality of life experienced by any class in that society can still get better or worse, both in relative terms and in ABSOLUTE terms, too.


The argument that there will always be people better or worse off does not in any way support the argument that THEREFORE we ought to ignore those outcomes.

When, in the early 60s the TOP TAX BRACKETS were STILL too high, it made GOOD SENSE to reduce those top rates.

We did that NOT because we LOVE the rich, but because THEIR PAIN was also hurting everybody else's economy in the AGGREGATE.

So too, it follows that when conditions change and it is now the middle and lower classes pain that is causing a depression of our economy IN THE AGGREGATE, it likewise follows that it would behoove us to go about the business of solving THAT problem.


People talk about CLASS in society as though that concept was something bad or something that Karl Marx invented as a secret way of hurting rich people.

POPPYCOCK! The rich had absolutely no problem differentiating CLASS when class meant the ARISTOCRACY versus everybody else, did they?

CLASS in sociology describes something real about society, and something that we need to take into account when we create policies governing our society.

 

[Jarhead]

Is this really the level that you get down at? To nitpick something like this, like really? do you think it's WORTH talking to someone who does such baby boy nonsense like that? Just curious. It tells me nothing about you, if we're being honest, except that you're pretty prissy & immature (here and now, anyways).

I always thought it was gamefully employed until I was about 40 years old when my wife corrected me. I would probably still think it was if not for my wife.

I knew it was gainfully, and as a creature of habit still type out "game" because even when I had realized that I was hearing it wrong, "gamefully" still fits.

Herewegoagain must be really bored. T'is okay, I'm responding in-between trying to write this chorus and I am sort of getting writer's block.

I still think "gamefully" makes a hell of a lot more sense than gainfully.

But I know my wife is a hell of a lot smarter than I am...

 

[AquaAthena]

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 so-called War on Poverty, has been a failure. The original goal was to reduce dependency, then when that failed, despite the mountains of taxpayer's monies, poured into the effort, the progressives redefined it with a change of wording: Reducing poverty by transferring resources.

Translated......FAIL. And still failing. You can't "help" people with hand-outs and giving them a hand-up wasn't enough for them for they don't want to earn; they want what we have earned. They are parasites and what is worse, they are proud of it.

There was a time when they would have been ashamed.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It's a typo.

I might believe that if you had typed "gaimfully"
Rather then admit ignorance you lied.
Tells me all I need to know about you.

Is this really the level that you get down at? To nitpick something like this, like really? do you think it's WORTH talking to someone who does such baby boy nonsense like that? Just curious. It tells me nothing about you, if we're being honest, except that you're pretty prissy & immature (here and now, anyways).

Just a test of your honesty....you failed.
I've seen it a million times in the work place. Afraid to ask for help because their ego wont let them.
Afraid to accept blame for their own ignorance. And it always involves some young egotistical punk know it all.
No wonder our country is going down the toilet.

 

[G.T.]

While it is a mathematical certainty that every society that is no eqalitarian WILL have folks at the bottom of the bell curve of wealth and at the top, that does NOT mean that nothing can ever change the quality of life experienced by everybody in that society.


A society in aggregate can get wealthier while the qualifty of life experienced by any class in that society can still get better or worse both in relative terms and in ABSOLUTE terms, too.


The argument that there will always be people better or worse off does not in any way support the argument that THEREFORE we ought to ignore those outcomes.

When, in the early 60s the TOP TAX BRACKETS were STILL too high, it made GOOD SENSE to reduce those top rates.


We did do that because we LOVE the rich, but because THEIR PAIN was also hurting the economy in AGREGATE.

So too it follows that when conditions change and it is now the middle and lower classes pain that is causing a depression of our economy IN THE AGGREGATE, it likewise follos that it would behoove us to go about the business of solving THAT problem.


People talk about CLASS in society as though that concept was something bad.

It isn't.


It describes something real and something that we need to take into account when we create policies governing our soceity.

I think so, too.

I think that the "poor" need to stop being scoffed at, and the rich as well. I do; though, find it patently absurd that the poor (hello, they're poor) are taking anything of significance "from" the rich, as though the rich have then dropped in class and the poor taken over their place. Especially at these tax rates, and especially with our technological advancements as a species period.

This is the point where love turns to greed. Hard work has hastened the spirit of many of the rich, and put a chip on their shoulder. They were NOT un deterred. They WERE psychologically vulnerable. Focus for a hard worker shifting from love to spite is a flaw of pessimism. But all humans are flawed. It takes living and traveling to all walks of life, and *truly* but not judgementally "taking it all in," and absorbing and at least attempting to understand the inner-nature of things putting pie charts aside.

 

[Moonglow]

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 so-called War on Poverty, has been a failure. The original goal was to reduce dependency, then when that failed, despite the mountains of taxpayer's monies, poured into the effort, the progressives redefined it with a change of wording: Reducing poverty by transferring resources.

Translated......FAIL. And still failing. You can't "help" people with hand-outs and giving them a hand-up wasn't enough for them for they don't want to earn; they want what we have earned. They are parasites and what is worse, they are proud of it.

There was a time when they would have been ashamed.

When someone goes on welfare they should have to perform duties fit to their abilities. If a natural diaster happens those in the affected areas should have to work to help clean up and reorganize, they should not be idle for that is the worst thing a human can do to their bodies and mind.

 

[G.T.]

I might believe that if you had typed "gaimfully"
Rather then admit ignorance you lied.
Tells me all I need to know about you.

Is this really the level that you get down at? To nitpick something like this, like really? do you think it's WORTH talking to someone who does such baby boy nonsense like that? Just curious. It tells me nothing about you, if we're being honest, except that you're pretty prissy & immature (here and now, anyways).

Just a test of your honesty....you failed.
I've seen it a million times in the work place. Afraid to ask for help because their ego wont let them.
Afraid to accept blame for their own ignorance. And it always involves some young egotistical punk know it all.
No wonder our country is going down the toilet.

Do you really not know, or are you unaware, that you're being JUST THAT, right now? Over the most inane bullshit? Did you ever hear the expression "don't cry over spilled milk?" Jesus christ, get a life.

 

[regent]

The sad thing is as America kept adding democracy to its agenda more Americans wanted to be part of the middle class. Democracy and middle class go together and that's where we made our mistake-- letting more and more people vote. When America was younger only those with property could vote and we had a peaceful country, slaves singing and dancing as they picked cotton. Doo dah, doo dah, the lazy shiftless drinking and making babies. But now they all want the good life and do not seem to have the wherewithall to achieve that good life. It's the democracy thing and people warned us, democracy needs a middle class.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Is this really the level that you get down at? To nitpick something like this, like really? do you think it's WORTH talking to someone who does such baby boy nonsense like that? Just curious. It tells me nothing about you, if we're being honest, except that you're pretty prissy & immature (here and now, anyways).

Just a test of your honesty....you failed.
I've seen it a million times in the work place. Afraid to ask for help because their ego wont let them.
Afraid to accept blame for their own ignorance. And it always involves some young egotistical punk know it all.
No wonder our country is going down the toilet.

Do you really not know, or are you unaware, that you're being JUST THAT, right now? Over the most inane bullshit? Did you ever hear the expression "don't cry over spilled milk?" Jesus christ, get a life.

I know it's tough to admit you dont know something.....but I promise it gets easier and you'll be better for it in the long run.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

You hopeless tool.


Feel better now?

There is never a clearer case of my hitting a home run than editech showing his petulance.

One can assume, based both on what techie wrote…and what he didn’t write, that the OP is successful in these areas:

a. There is no actual poverty, in the traditional sense.
b. Pod People have been fooled, once again, into voting for the party that avowed to help what we now know is an imaginary group.
c. Facts, nor experience, nor logic inform the voting patterns of the Pods.
d. But…they can find the energy to show anger toward those who provide the truth.



Is it just possible that this poor, helpless Pod seems to be having just a bit of buyers remorse, huh?
Nah….Pods never learn.

But I truly appreciate the validation, techie.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

'Standard of living' is a fundamental principle of economics.