Poverty: the pot of crap at the end every Progressives rainbow

[CrusaderFrank]

How many times must Progressive redistribution economics fail before even low information Obama voters understand that they will come to a bad end. Detroit, Baltimore, communist China, USSR, Venezuela and now Greece are all Progressive failures

Progressives can only maintain their "fuck you! I got mine" attitude for so long, its an attitude built of sand at low tide. It's inevitable that it collapses.

One day they'll learn

 

[Luddly Neddite]

But the logic behind the proposals is problematic in at least three, really big ways.

The first is economic: There's virtually no evidence that the poor actually spend their money this way. The idea that they do defies Maslow's hierarchy — the notion that we all need shelter and food before we go in search of foot massages. In fact, the poor are much more savvy about how they spend their money because they have less of it (quick quiz: do you know exactly how much you last spent on a gallon of milk? or a bag of diapers?). By definition, a much higher share of their income — often more than half of it — is eaten up by basic housing costs than is true for the better-off, leaving them less money for luxuries anyway. And contrary to the logic of drug-testing laws, the poor are no more likely to use drugs than the population at large.

The second issue with these laws is a moral one: We rarely make similar demands of other recipients of government aid. We don't drug-test farmers who receive agriculture subsidies (lest they think about plowing while high!). We don't require Pell Grant recipients to prove that they're pursuing a degree that will get them a real job one day (sorry, no poetry!). We don't require wealthy families who cash in on the home mortgage interest deduction to prove that they don't use their homes as brothels (because surely someone out there does this). The strings that we attach to government aid are attached uniquely for the poor.

That leads us to the third problem, which is a political one. Many, many Americans who do receive these other kinds of government benefits — farm subsidies, student loans, mortgage tax breaks — don't recognize that, like the poor, they get something from government, too. That's because government gives money directly to poor people, but it gives benefits to the rest of us in ways that allow us to tell ourselves that we get nothing from government at all.

Source: What Kansas gets wrong when it tries to control what poor people can do with welfare - The Washington Post


AND

Only the working poor must comply with the tax code

 

[danielpalos]

We have a Commerce Clause whenever the right gets tired of extra-Constitutional warfare-State government programs that only cost more money and don't solve any problems.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Progressives can only maintain their "fuck you! I got mine" attitude for so long,

What the fuck is this? Opposite day?

Frank says Dems want to help the poor and then calls that the "Fuck you I got mine" attitude?

Where are we? The Twilight Zone?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives can only maintain their "fuck you! I got mine" attitude for so long,

What the fuck is this? Opposite day?

Frank says Dems want to help the poor and then calls that the "Fuck you I got mine" attitude?

Where are we? The Twilight Zone?

We're fighting this imaginary Democrat war on poverty for 50 years and we have more poor people than ever. Will you admit failure

 

[ClosedCaption]

Progressives can only maintain their "fuck you! I got mine" attitude for so long,

What the fuck is this? Opposite day?

Frank says Dems want to help the poor and then calls that the "Fuck you I got mine" attitude?

Where are we? The Twilight Zone?

We're fighting this imaginary Democrat war on poverty for 50 years and we have more poor people than ever. Will you admit failure

How are we fighting for the poor while telling them we got ours so fuck off? Those are 2 different messages lame brain

 

[danielpalos]

Progressives can only maintain their "fuck you! I got mine" attitude for so long,

What the fuck is this? Opposite day?

Frank says Dems want to help the poor and then calls that the "Fuck you I got mine" attitude?

Where are we? The Twilight Zone?

We're fighting this imaginary Democrat war on poverty for 50 years and we have more poor people than ever. Will you admit failure

No, I only admit mediocre public policies.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives can only maintain their "fuck you! I got mine" attitude for so long,

What the fuck is this? Opposite day?

Frank says Dems want to help the poor and then calls that the "Fuck you I got mine" attitude?

Where are we? The Twilight Zone?

We're fighting this imaginary Democrat war on poverty for 50 years and we have more poor people than ever. Will you admit failure

How are we fighting for the poor while telling them we got ours so fuck off? Those are 2 different messages lame brain

You're "Fighting" to keep people in poverty and dependent on the governemnt

 

[ClosedCaption]

Progressives can only maintain their "fuck you! I got mine" attitude for so long,

What the fuck is this? Opposite day?

Frank says Dems want to help the poor and then calls that the "Fuck you I got mine" attitude?

Where are we? The Twilight Zone?

We're fighting this imaginary Democrat war on poverty for 50 years and we have more poor people than ever. Will you admit failure

How are we fighting for the poor while telling them we got ours so fuck off? Those are 2 different messages lame brain

You're "Fighting" to keep people in poverty and dependent on the governemnt

That makes as much since as your "fighting for the poor" while saying they dont care.

 

[The Rabbi]

Progressives can only maintain their "fuck you! I got mine" attitude for so long,

What the fuck is this? Opposite day?

Frank says Dems want to help the poor and then calls that the "Fuck you I got mine" attitude?

Where are we? The Twilight Zone?

We're fighting this imaginary Democrat war on poverty for 50 years and we have more poor people than ever. Will you admit failure

No, I only admit mediocre public policies.

There is no problem that cannot be solved with a well-designed policy and copious amounts of cash.

Yeah, that's a fail. Progressive policies fail 100% because they somehow leave out reality. Reality is that there is no multiplier for gov't spending. Reality is that if you create incentives not to work, people wont work. Reality is that consumer spending does not drive the economy (business investment does). Reality is that if you set the price of something above the market rate, like labor, you get surpluses, and if you set it below the market rate, like healthcare, you get shortages.
Those are simply economic realities that Progressive policies seek to ignore, searching for the ever-elusive free lunch of politics.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Progressive policies fail 100%? Well by golly that means the republicans are in the cat bird seat to create real working policies.

Oh wait, they cant....Those 100% failure liberals are stopping them. Ho hum

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Progressive policies fail 100%? Well by golly that means the republicans are in the cat bird seat to create real working policies.

Oh wait, they cant....Those 100% failure liberals are stopping them. Ho hum

Well, I dunno about that.. but, it is difficult to compete with Santa Claus.. Santa who provides presents paid for by someone else. Unfortunately, there are plenty of dummies who either are too stupid to realize this can't continue, or, who just don't care as long as they getting theirs.

 

[bripat9643]

But the logic behind the proposals is problematic in at least three, really big ways.

The first is economic: There's virtually no evidence that the poor actually spend their money this way. The idea that they do defies Maslow's hierarchy — the notion that we all need shelter and food before we go in search of foot massages. In fact, the poor are much more savvy about how they spend their money because they have less of it (quick quiz: do you know exactly how much you last spent on a gallon of milk? or a bag of diapers?). By definition, a much higher share of their income — often more than half of it — is eaten up by basic housing costs than is true for the better-off, leaving them less money for luxuries anyway. And contrary to the logic of drug-testing laws, the poor are no more likely to use drugs than the population at large.

The second issue with these laws is a moral one: We rarely make similar demands of other recipients of government aid. We don't drug-test farmers who receive agriculture subsidies (lest they think about plowing while high!). We don't require Pell Grant recipients to prove that they're pursuing a degree that will get them a real job one day (sorry, no poetry!). We don't require wealthy families who cash in on the home mortgage interest deduction to prove that they don't use their homes as brothels (because surely someone out there does this). The strings that we attach to government aid are attached uniquely for the poor.

That leads us to the third problem, which is a political one. Many, many Americans who do receive these other kinds of government benefits — farm subsidies, student loans, mortgage tax breaks — don't recognize that, like the poor, they get something from government, too. That's because government gives money directly to poor people, but it gives benefits to the rest of us in ways that allow us to tell ourselves that we get nothing from government at all.

Source: What Kansas gets wrong when it tries to control what poor people can do with welfare - The Washington Post


AND

Only the working poor must comply with the tax code

Which "proposals" are you talking about? What the fuck does this have to do with the OP?

 

[danielpalos]

Progressives can only maintain their "fuck you! I got mine" attitude for so long,

What the fuck is this? Opposite day?

Frank says Dems want to help the poor and then calls that the "Fuck you I got mine" attitude?

Where are we? The Twilight Zone?

We're fighting this imaginary Democrat war on poverty for 50 years and we have more poor people than ever. Will you admit failure

No, I only admit mediocre public policies.

There is no problem that cannot be solved with a well-designed policy and copious amounts of cash.

Yeah, that's a fail. Progressive policies fail 100% because they somehow leave out reality. Reality is that there is no multiplier for gov't spending. Reality is that if you create incentives not to work, people wont work. Reality is that consumer spending does not drive the economy (business investment does). Reality is that if you set the price of something above the market rate, like labor, you get surpluses, and if you set it below the market rate, like healthcare, you get shortages.
Those are simply economic realities that Progressive policies seek to ignore, searching for the ever-elusive free lunch of politics.

The reality is the right doesn't really have a clue or a Cause, in any at-will employment State. Unemployment compensation (that should clear our poverty guidelines) does engender a positive multiplier effect. But, unfortunately for the Right, it benefits the least wealthy and not just the wealthiest.

 

[The Rabbi]

Progressives can only maintain their "fuck you! I got mine" attitude for so long,

What the fuck is this? Opposite day?

Frank says Dems want to help the poor and then calls that the "Fuck you I got mine" attitude?

Where are we? The Twilight Zone?

We're fighting this imaginary Democrat war on poverty for 50 years and we have more poor people than ever. Will you admit failure

No, I only admit mediocre public policies.

There is no problem that cannot be solved with a well-designed policy and copious amounts of cash.

Yeah, that's a fail. Progressive policies fail 100% because they somehow leave out reality. Reality is that there is no multiplier for gov't spending. Reality is that if you create incentives not to work, people wont work. Reality is that consumer spending does not drive the economy (business investment does). Reality is that if you set the price of something above the market rate, like labor, you get surpluses, and if you set it below the market rate, like healthcare, you get shortages.
Those are simply economic realities that Progressive policies seek to ignore, searching for the ever-elusive free lunch of politics.

The reality is the right doesn't really have a clue or a Cause, in any at-will employment State. Unemployment compensation (that should clear our poverty guidelines) does engender a positive multiplier effect. But, unfortunately for the Right, it benefits the least wealthy and not just the wealthiest.

Food stamps, SSI, and unemployment are the drivers of the Obama economy!

 

[boedicca]

How many times must Progressive redistribution economics fail before even low information Obama voters understand that they will come to a bad end. Detroit, Baltimore, communist China, USSR, Venezuela and now Greece are all Progressive failures

Progressives can only maintain their "fuck you! I got mine" attitude for so long, its an attitude built of sand at low tide. It's inevitable that it collapses.

One day they'll learn

But but but.... because EQUALITY!

 

[boedicca]

What the fuck is this? Opposite day?

Frank says Dems want to help the poor and then calls that the "Fuck you I got mine" attitude?

Where are we? The Twilight Zone?

We're fighting this imaginary Democrat war on poverty for 50 years and we have more poor people than ever. Will you admit failure

No, I only admit mediocre public policies.

There is no problem that cannot be solved with a well-designed policy and copious amounts of cash.

Yeah, that's a fail. Progressive policies fail 100% because they somehow leave out reality. Reality is that there is no multiplier for gov't spending. Reality is that if you create incentives not to work, people wont work. Reality is that consumer spending does not drive the economy (business investment does). Reality is that if you set the price of something above the market rate, like labor, you get surpluses, and if you set it below the market rate, like healthcare, you get shortages.
Those are simply economic realities that Progressive policies seek to ignore, searching for the ever-elusive free lunch of politics.

The reality is the right doesn't really have a clue or a Cause, in any at-will employment State. Unemployment compensation (that should clear our poverty guidelines) does engender a positive multiplier effect. But, unfortunately for the Right, it benefits the least wealthy and not just the wealthiest.

Food stamps, SSI, and unemployment are the drivers of the Obama economy!

You left out Big Government Cronyism and the Revolving Lobbyist Door.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Progressives can only maintain their "fuck you! I got mine" attitude for so long,

What the fuck is this? Opposite day?

Frank says Dems want to help the poor and then calls that the "Fuck you I got mine" attitude?

Where are we? The Twilight Zone?

We're fighting this imaginary Democrat war on poverty for 50 years and we have more poor people than ever. Will you admit failure

How are we fighting for the poor while telling them we got ours so fuck off? Those are 2 different messages lame brain

THat's the ticket.
Progressive pretend to help the poor and the so called downtrodden. This is done for the sole purpose of securing votes...
Meanwhile poverty, lawlessness, women bearing children out of wedlock, major cities decaying into mere shells of their former conditions....All these things liberalism and those politicians that champion it, were supposed to end.
There are no excuses. No one else to blame. No one at which to point fingers.

 

[thereisnospoon]

But the logic behind the proposals is problematic in at least three, really big ways.

The first is economic: There's virtually no evidence that the poor actually spend their money this way. The idea that they do defies Maslow's hierarchy — the notion that we all need shelter and food before we go in search of foot massages. In fact, the poor are much more savvy about how they spend their money because they have less of it (quick quiz: do you know exactly how much you last spent on a gallon of milk? or a bag of diapers?). By definition, a much higher share of their income — often more than half of it — is eaten up by basic housing costs than is true for the better-off, leaving them less money for luxuries anyway. And contrary to the logic of drug-testing laws, the poor are no more likely to use drugs than the population at large.

The second issue with these laws is a moral one: We rarely make similar demands of other recipients of government aid. We don't drug-test farmers who receive agriculture subsidies (lest they think about plowing while high!). We don't require Pell Grant recipients to prove that they're pursuing a degree that will get them a real job one day (sorry, no poetry!). We don't require wealthy families who cash in on the home mortgage interest deduction to prove that they don't use their homes as brothels (because surely someone out there does this). The strings that we attach to government aid are attached uniquely for the poor.

That leads us to the third problem, which is a political one. Many, many Americans who do receive these other kinds of government benefits — farm subsidies, student loans, mortgage tax breaks — don't recognize that, like the poor, they get something from government, too. That's because government gives money directly to poor people, but it gives benefits to the rest of us in ways that allow us to tell ourselves that we get nothing from government at all.

Source: What Kansas gets wrong when it tries to control what poor people can do with welfare - The Washington Post


AND

Only the working poor must comply with the tax code

All of the above save for the welfare recipients presently do or in the future will produce. And as a result of their production will aid in funding state and federal governments.
Those on the public dole or more or less permanent wards of the state.
Big difference.

 

[Billy000]

How many times must Progressive redistribution economics fail before even low information Obama voters understand that they will come to a bad end. Detroit, Baltimore, communist China, USSR, Venezuela and now Greece are all Progressive failures

Progressives can only maintain their "fuck you! I got mine" attitude for so long, its an attitude built of sand at low tide. It's inevitable that it collapses.

One day they'll learn

What exactly are these "redistribution of wealth" policies? I don't know why you cons keep entertaining this fantasy about the left. No such policies exist.