Proven Right Yet Again!

You know, I always hear howls of protest and indignation from the 'nuts around here when I point out that all conservative economic policy is designed to increase the gap between rich and poor in this country.

But based on the OP's position, and the many here who agree with her,

who can prove I'm wrong?
What's wrong with people getting rich?

Because when you whine about the gulf between the poor and the rich, that's what you're whining about. It's that rich people have too much money.

I don't resent it when people succeed. I resent it when people try to prevent or slow down individual success.

Aside from that your demand that others prove your wrong, is, per usual, ass backwards. It isn't our job to prove you wrong, it's your job to prove you're right. So far you haven't, so we don't need to do anything at all except let you sit there with your stupid statement.
 
Last edited:
You know, I always hear howls of protest and indignation from the 'nuts around here when I point out that all conservative economic policy is designed to increase the gap between rich and poor in this country.

But based on the OP's position, and the many here who agree with her,

who can prove I'm wrong?

Why should we listen to you at all. A couple of posts later you claim to not understand what the OP even says.

Her desire to widen the gap between rich and poor in this country, which is mainstream conservative policy, that part comes across loud and clear.

Do you want to dispute that? Do you want to show us how in sum total the conservative approach to economic policy does NOT widen the gap between rich and poor?

First you understand, then you don't, now you do. :lol:

The only thing you proved is you're just here to be a hack.
 
1. “:…food stamp recipients -- increasing from 33 million people in 2009 to 43 million in 2012 -- as a sign that poverty had skyrocketed under President Obama. But a new study suggests that the reason there has been such an increase in food stamp recipients during the last four years is even more pernicious.

2. …George Mason University's David Armor and Sonia Sousa, argue that the food stamp program can no longer be regarded as an anti-poverty program because nearly half of its recipients are above the poverty line, many of them substantially so.

a. …other anti-poverty programs have an even higher percentage of the non-poor among their recipients.





3. The study examined spending over the last thirty years for federal anti-poverty programs providing nutrition, health care, housing and cash assistance for the supposed poor. They show that the explosion in costs for these programs has little to do with the higher numbers of Americans who have fallen into poverty since the Great Recession…

4. Spending for poverty programs received a big boost during the Bush years, a $100 billion increase over eight years. But the Obama spending spree dwarfed those increases.In his first two years in office, President Obama increased such spending by $150 billion, some of it in the 2009 stimulus package.




5. The portion of the federal budget now attributable to fighting the "war on poverty" is now roughly equal to the entire defense budget ($666 billion compared to $693 billion), slightly less than spending on Social Security ($700 billion), but more than on Medicare ($551 billion).

a. Taken together, federal spending on income transfers and other social benefits are now 2.76 times greater than spending for national defense.

6. The major changes occurred when the government allowed more lenient standards for eligibility for benefits. Most of these programs were originally designed to help those who lived below the official poverty line, which in 2011 was $11,702 for a single person and $22,811 for a family of four. But over the years, the federal government has lowered the threshold so that even those earning twice the income considered below poverty still qualify.

a. …in several states, a family of four with income of over $45,000 a year is eligible to receive benefits.

7. …over half of the recipients of food stamps (now known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program or SNAP), have income above the poverty line.

a. Of the 40.3 million receiving food stamps in 2010 (the last year for which detailed figures are available), 20.4 were above the poverty cut-off. Of these, a whopping 8 million have income twice the poverty level.





8. …the non-poor receive more benefits than food stamps. Those living at 133-200 percent or more of the poverty level also constitute the greatest number of beneficiaries of Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program.

a. Even Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), which gives cash benefits to those supposedly in need, now supports those whose incomes are twice the official poverty definition; indeed 40 percent of TANF funds go to families whose incomes are more than 200 percent of poverty.

9. The policy implications of these findings are enormous. What once were programs to provide a safety net for the truly poor are now programs to boost the living standards of the lower middle class.

10. … these changes reflect a sea change in social and economic policy. Those who have warned that America is heading toward a welfare state are wrong. We are already there.” The American Welfare State - Linda Chavez - [page]



This from one of my previous posts:
1. Re-examine the welfare solution for poverty. The very first step is to reinstitute the real definition of “poverty.” It is “no home-no heat- no food.” That’s poverty.

2. The Progressives have corrupted the meaning for several reasons, not the least of which is to maximize the vote from recipients of various bogus programs…such as food stamps.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/265982-obama-and-the-fiscal-cliff.html



You've been lied to...and you bought it like it was on sale!

Say what, Obama voters???




“Some ideas are so stupid, only an intellectual could believe them.” George Orwell

I just saw this chart yesterday. It turns out that, if we converted all government benefits to cash payments, we spend more money on our social safety net per household in poverty than the average working household gets.

Screen-Shot-2012-12-07-at-2.54.33-PM.png
 
Please cite your source for he claim made in # 5.

Thank you.

Other questions:

Did any families whose income exceeded the poverty line ever receive government assistance before Obama became President?

Why do some states permit families with incomes above the poverty line to receive benefits while others do not?

How much does it cost a family of four to live in New Jersey?

Why do you consider a study that supports your fucked up point of view to be proof of anything?

Are you an incredibly stupid idiot, or do you just play one on the internet?
 
Please cite your source for he claim made in # 5.

Thank you.

Other questions:

Did any families whose income exceeded the poverty line ever receive government assistance before Obama became President?

Why do some states permit families with incomes above the poverty line to receive benefits while others do not?

How much does it cost a family of four to live in New Jersey?

Why do you consider a study that supports your fucked up point of view to be proof of anything?

Are you an incredibly stupid idiot, or do you just play one on the internet?

Again? You want to be shown your place again?
 
You know, I always hear howls of protest and indignation from the 'nuts around here when I point out that all conservative economic policy is designed to increase the gap between rich and poor in this country.

But based on the OP's position, and the many here who agree with her,

who can prove I'm wrong?

Liberal economic policy is designed to allow the poor to become rich by giving them the opportunity to work hard and keep the money they earn.

Progressive economic policy is designed to force everyone to be poor by taking money away from others.

Those are the two choices we have in economic policy today. unfortunately, progressives are winning the debate right now because people are jealous, greedy, and self serving.
 
Can someone who is fluent in incomprehensible verbosity give me a short answer to who is the OP claiming is right,

and what is she claiming they were right about?

Short answers.

Who is right? Everyone on the planet who is not you.

What are they right about? Anything they believe that disagrees with anything you believe.
 
You know, I always hear howls of protest and indignation from the 'nuts around here when I point out that all conservative economic policy is designed to increase the gap between rich and poor in this country.

But based on the OP's position, and the many here who agree with her,

who can prove I'm wrong?
What's wrong with people getting rich?

Because when you whine about the gulf between the poor and the rich, that's what you're whining about. It's that rich people have too much money.

I don't resent it when people succeed. I resent it when people try to prevent or slow down individual success.

Aside from that your demand that others prove your wrong, is, per usual, ass backwards. It isn't our job to prove you wrong, it's your job to prove you're right. So far you haven't, so we don't need to do anything at all except let you sit there with your stupid statement.

He is greedy and selfish, what do you expect?
 
Please cite your source for he claim made in # 5.

Thank you.

Other questions:

Did any families whose income exceeded the poverty line ever receive government assistance before Obama became President?

Why do some states permit families with incomes above the poverty line to receive benefits while others do not?

How much does it cost a family of four to live in New Jersey?

Why do you consider a study that supports your fucked up point of view to be proof of anything?

Are you an incredibly stupid idiot, or do you just play one on the internet?

Again? You want to be shown your place again?

Again? What makes you think I don't know my place?
 
Please cite your source for he claim made in # 5.

Thank you.

Other questions:

Did any families whose income exceeded the poverty line ever receive government assistance before Obama became President?

Why do some states permit families with incomes above the poverty line to receive benefits while others do not?

How much does it cost a family of four to live in New Jersey?

Why do you consider a study that supports your fucked up point of view to be proof of anything?

Her link is to a Linda Chavez article that doesn't substantiate her claims. They might be true, they might not be.



You'd best stick with 'might be.'
 
The major changes occurred when the government allowed more lenient standards for eligibility for benefits.

When did they do that?

Why?

Is this some slimy way of admitting that my statement is true?

Why not simply admit same?

You didn't make the statement, you copied it from someone else. But someone else isn't here.

So I'm asking what it refers to. What eligibility standards changed and when?
 
Can someone who is fluent in incomprehensible verbosity give me a short answer to who is the OP claiming is right,

and what is she claiming they were right about?



Good news: you aren’t steeped in original sin…since you obviously haven’t eaten of the tree of knowledge.
 
I seriously don't care. Naturally after a major crash we had in 08 these things would go up. Usuage is going to spike because so many jobs where lost. I don't blame obama for a natural cause and affect. Hell I don't even blame bush for the spike. It would happen regardless of who was in office ritht after a crash. Mccain would have seen the samething.

What a meaningless point to whine about. You where right about nothing.

It's like blaming FDR for the Depression.


Look at you!!
Gettin' close to being correct!

In 1935, the Brookings Institution (left-leaning) delivered a 900-page report on the New Deal and the National Recovery Administration, concluding that “ on the whole it retarded recovery.”
The Real Deal - Society and Culture - AEI
 
Yes. Give me another beating and provide the source for your claim in #5?

Thanks.

Gee...that was easy.
Now, try this:
SIT-STAY-ROLL OVER!



OK...here comes your treat:

1. "Yet this year the federal
government will spend more than $668 billion on at
least 126 different programs to fight poverty.
And that does not even begin to count welfare
spending by state and local governments, which
adds $284 billion to that figure. In total, the
United States spends nearly $1 trillion every
year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610
for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per
poor family of three."
Scribd


And...


2. Obama’s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It’s Spent

Obama?s 2011 Budget Proposal: How It?s Spent - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com

$3.69 trillon budget proposal

1. Social Security $738 20%

2.National Defense $738

3. Income Security $567

4. Medicare $498

5.Net Interest $251

6. Health $381

7. Education $122

8. Veteran’s Benefits $122

9. Transportation $91.55

10. International Affairs $67.39
$3,575.94


Defense and international security assistance: In 2011, 20 percent of the budget, or $718 billion, paid for defense and security-related international activities. The bulk of the spending in this category reflects the underlying costs of the Department of Defense and other security-related activities. The total also includes the cost of supporting operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, funding for which totaled $159 billion in 2011. Policy Basics: Where Do Our Federal Tax Dollars Go? — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
 
Please cite your source for he claim made in # 5.

Thank you.

Other questions:

Did any families whose income exceeded the poverty line ever receive government assistance before Obama became President?

Why do some states permit families with incomes above the poverty line to receive benefits while others do not?

How much does it cost a family of four to live in New Jersey?

Why do you consider a study that supports your fucked up point of view to be proof of anything?

Yes, families whose income exceeds the poverty line have been eligible to receive goverment assistance... the standard for foodstamps is 185 percent of the federal poverty level. If your gross income is less than that, you are potentially elibible for foodstamps. What has changed dramatically over the last 5 years are the requirements....lack of citizenship documentation is no longer good cause to withhold benefits. And the push to advertise foodstamp eligibility ad reach and enroll those who have not previously applied has resulted in huge increases in foodstamp eligibility.

Medical is different from state to state because medical is largely funded by the states. Foodstamps are a federal program. TANF is funded by both states and feds, so those programs have different requirements and varying availability from state to state.

I have no idea how the New Jersey cost of living for 4 people is pertinent to anything.



I heard one report that stated that 39 states don't require any income verification for food stamps.

Do you know if that is correct?
 

Forum List

Back
Top