Poverty?? Fool Me Once...And Again

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So if standards never change, we need to go back as far in human history as we can and find out what poverty was at that point,

and use that standard today to determine who is or isn't in poverty in America.

 

[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.

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

I am trying to figure out if it is that you dont want to get it, cant get it, or I am not articulating my point properly.

But based on the multitude of your responses to me in the past, I tend to believe it is that you dont want to get it.

So I am done with this debate with you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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 no point.

The OP documents that the bogus 'poverty programs' are actually designed to suck the uninformed into supporting communism, the redistribution of wealth.

That would be you that I'm referring to.




1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.

2. Government cannot and will not correct itself- thus the necessity for elections. But society, convened as the free market, can and des correct itself…and quickly, ‘else the risk of impoverishment.


3. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.


a. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge,: chapter 32.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

So if standards never change, we need to go back as far in human history as we can and find out what poverty was at that point,

and use that standard today to determine who is or isn't in poverty in America.

I used to believe that you were simply pretending to be this dumb, in order to be argumentative.

No longer.



You are simply the embodiment of a character out of "1984": big brother constantly changes the enemy...and you swear it has always been so.
But...you never read it...so the allusion is lost on you.

“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."
From the OP.


Poverty means no home, no heat, no food.


Not, "the water in my Jacuzzi isn't quite warm enough....heat it for me."

BTW...6% of those labelled as 'poor' have a Jacuzzi.


And the Pod People keep buying the scam.
Raise your paw....leaf.

 

[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.

So if standards never change, we need to go back as far in human history as we can and find out what poverty was at that point,

and use that standard today to determine who is or isn't in poverty in America.

I used to believe that you were simply pretending to be this dumb, in order to be argumentative.

No longer.



You are simply the embodiment of a character out of "1984": big brother constantly changes the enemy...and you swear it has always been so.
But...you never read it...so the allusion is lost on you.

“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."
From the OP.


Poverty means no home, no heat, no food.


Not, "the water in my Jacuzzi isn't quite warm enough....heat it for me."

BTW...6% of those labelled as 'poor' have a Jacuzzi.


And the Pod People keep buying the scam.
Raise your paw....leaf.

So based on the lack of what you call 'real' poverty,

the War on Poverty has been a resounding success,

which means you've proven yourself wrong on one of your most frequent proclamations...

...that the War on Poverty was a failure.

 

[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.

So if standards never change, we need to go back as far in human history as we can and find out what poverty was at that point,

and use that standard today to determine who is or isn't in poverty in America.

I used to believe that you were simply pretending to be this dumb, in order to be argumentative.

No longer.



You are simply the embodiment of a character out of "1984": big brother constantly changes the enemy...and you swear it has always been so.
But...you never read it...so the allusion is lost on you.

“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."
From the OP.


Poverty means no home, no heat, no food.


Not, "the water in my Jacuzzi isn't quite warm enough....heat it for me."

BTW...6% of those labelled as 'poor' have a Jacuzzi.


And the Pod People keep buying the scam.
Raise your paw....leaf.

Based on your 'logic', black Americans in the South during segregation had no cause to complain about using separate drinking fountains,

because somewhere in the world there were people who didn't have drinking fountains.

 

[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 no point.

The OP documents that the bogus 'poverty programs' are actually designed to suck the uninformed into supporting communism, the redistribution of wealth.

That would be you that I'm referring to.




1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.

2. Government cannot and will not correct itself- thus the necessity for elections. But society, convened as the free market, can and des correct itself…and quickly, ‘else the risk of impoverishment.


3. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.


a. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge,: chapter 32.

Is there any chance we could debate you instead of debating people you've run into on google?

The public education system in this country is fundamentally constructed on the basis of the necessity of redistributing wealth.

Should we eliminate it? Should we allow the market to determine who can afford an education?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

I am trying to figure out if it is that you dont want to get it, cant get it, or I am not articulating my point properly.

But based on the multitude of your responses to me in the past, I tend to believe it is that you dont want to get it.

So I am done with this debate with you.

You think we give too much to the poor. I get that. Romney and Ryan ran on that, since the biggest share of their 'smaller government' plan was to fall on cutting back on what is given to the poor.

But they lost. If want the poor to be poorer, you'll have to convince more Americans to vote for that.

I believe that if we can afford billions to defend Europe, Korea, and Japan, as examples, then we can afford billions to make the lives of our poor people a little better,

and if we can't afford both, then we ought to let the Europeans and the Koreans and Japanese defend themselves,

as opposed to letting our American poor fend for themselves.

 

[Jarhead]

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

I am trying to figure out if it is that you dont want to get it, cant get it, or I am not articulating my point properly.

But based on the multitude of your responses to me in the past, I tend to believe it is that you dont want to get it.

So I am done with this debate with you.

You think we give too much to the poor. I get that. Romney and Ryan ran on that, since the biggest share of their 'smaller government' plan was to fall on cutting back on what is given to the poor.

But they lost. If want the poor to be poorer, you'll have to convince more Americans to vote for that.

I believe that if we can afford billions to defend Europe, Korea, and Japan, as examples, then we can afford billions to make the lives of our poor people a little better,

and if we can't afford both, then we ought to let the Europeans and the Koreans and Japanese defend themselves,

as opposed to letting our American poor fend for themselves.

I am not against helping those that need it.

I am against the idea of raising the level of "need" in an attempt to gain a larger share of the electorate.

A family of four will not be in need with an income of 45K....however, they will lack many "wants"....and those "wants" is what will drive them to acheive greater financial success on their own.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I am trying to figure out if it is that you dont want to get it, cant get it, or I am not articulating my point properly.

But based on the multitude of your responses to me in the past, I tend to believe it is that you dont want to get it.

So I am done with this debate with you.

You think we give too much to the poor. I get that. Romney and Ryan ran on that, since the biggest share of their 'smaller government' plan was to fall on cutting back on what is given to the poor.

But they lost. If want the poor to be poorer, you'll have to convince more Americans to vote for that.

I believe that if we can afford billions to defend Europe, Korea, and Japan, as examples, then we can afford billions to make the lives of our poor people a little better,

and if we can't afford both, then we ought to let the Europeans and the Koreans and Japanese defend themselves,

as opposed to letting our American poor fend for themselves.

I am not against helping those that need it.

I am against the idea of raising the level of "need" in an attempt to gain a larger share of the electorate.

A family of four will not be in need with an income of 45K....however, they will lack many "wants"....and those "wants" is what will drive them to acheive greater financial success on their own.

A middle/moderate income family of four gets big tax breaks for the children, most of which are Republican supported. Is that 'raising the level of need' to buy votes?

45k is not much for a family of four.

 

[Jarhead]

You think we give too much to the poor. I get that. Romney and Ryan ran on that, since the biggest share of their 'smaller government' plan was to fall on cutting back on what is given to the poor.

But they lost. If want the poor to be poorer, you'll have to convince more Americans to vote for that.

I believe that if we can afford billions to defend Europe, Korea, and Japan, as examples, then we can afford billions to make the lives of our poor people a little better,

and if we can't afford both, then we ought to let the Europeans and the Koreans and Japanese defend themselves,

as opposed to letting our American poor fend for themselves.

I am not against helping those that need it.

I am against the idea of raising the level of "need" in an attempt to gain a larger share of the electorate.

A family of four will not be in need with an income of 45K....however, they will lack many "wants"....and those "wants" is what will drive them to acheive greater financial success on their own.

A middle/moderate income family of four gets big tax breaks for the children, most of which are Republican supported. Is that 'raising the level of need' to buy votes?

45k is not much for a family of four.

I did mean to say raising the level of need. The level of need is the level of need. You cant artificially raise it. What is deemed as "needs" is what has changed. Many "wants" are now l;abelled as "needs".

I came from a moderate income family. We had all of our needs and some of our wants. I wore sneakers until they had holes in them...I wore patches on my "dungarees" when I ripped them at the knee. My shorts for the summer were my oldest "dungarees" cut off at the knee......In return, we had 2 TV's in the house.

Now?

Designer label jeans without patches is deemed a need.
2 year old atghletic shoes are deemed worthless and in need of replacement.
New shorts for gymn class each year is a need.

45K is not much for a family of four. I agree. But it does not mean they should be labeled as living in poverty.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So if the 'poor' in America are relatively well off,

that means the liberal/Democrat 'war on poverty', mostly associated with but not limited to Lyndon Johnson,

has been a great success, not the dismal failure that conservatives relentlessly attempt to label it as.

You've just demolished one of conservatisms' favorite points.

your simple mind is amusing.

Such is why the "middle class" has diminished.

What we used to accurately call the middle class is now deemed as poor.

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

What has changed is the definition of poverty due to the Left-wing belief of Utopia here on earth. Somehow, if the Leftist goal of material equality is met, Utopia will be achieved.

It seems they've never heard about the 'worker's paradise.'



1. The religion of Leftism has its search for Utopia…albeit of this sphere…and two famous statements encapsulate the search:

a. There are those that look at things the way they are, and ask why? I dream of things that never were, and ask why not ?Attributed to Robert Kennedy.

b. The other is from the words of John Lennon’s song, “Imagine.” One is asked to imagine that there is no heaven or hell, that everyone lives for today; that there are no countries, nothing to kill for, and no religion; there are no possessions- therefore no greed nor hunger.

2. Conservatives don’t dream of things that never were nearly so much as Liberals do. We usually dream the same dream that our forefathers did: an America that is identified by the “American Trinity” of “Liberty,” “In God We Trust,” and “E Pluribus Unum.” And, judging by history, we have seen that ‘utopian dreams’ are more likely to end up as nightmares.
Dennis Prager, "Still The best Hope."

 

[PoliticalChic]

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 no point.

The OP documents that the bogus 'poverty programs' are actually designed to suck the uninformed into supporting communism, the redistribution of wealth.

That would be you that I'm referring to.




1. The adolescent, the Marxist, and the Liberal dream of “fairness,” brought about by the state. Silly. This would mean usurping the society decision that the skilled worker is entitled to higher pay than the unskilled. This decision is never pronounced by any authority other than the free market. It was arrived at via the interaction of human beings perfectly capable of ordering their own affairs.

2. Government cannot and will not correct itself- thus the necessity for elections. But society, convened as the free market, can and des correct itself…and quickly, ‘else the risk of impoverishment.


3. If the Leftist is interested in a more ‘fair’ redistribution of wealth, let him vote for lower taxes, and then he can distribute his now larger share of his wealth to the lesser compensated folks.


a. Illustrative of reality is the fact that the Leftist refrains from paying above the stated price for goods and services…he wants, as everyone else does, competition between said services. Only then does he stand a chance of getting a “fair” price. In his own enterprise, he strives to improve quality or lower price…’else his potential customers will take their business to others. Unless he has the power of government!
Mamet, "The Secret Knowledge,: chapter 32.

Is there any chance we could debate you instead of debating people you've run into on google?

The public education system in this country is fundamentally constructed on the basis of the necessity of redistributing wealth.

Should we eliminate it? Should we allow the market to determine who can afford an education?

1. "Is there any chance we could debate you instead of debating people you've run into on google?"
See....proof that one can only judge others based on themselves.
I quote books I've read, and on which I've taken notes...

....concepts foreign to you?



2. "The public education system in this country is fundamentally constructed on the basis of the necessity of redistributing wealth."
And, here we have further proof that you not only know less than nothing...but that ideas are totally fabricated in your imagination.

Possibly you are confusing the public education system with "Das Kapital", by Karl Marx.