A Certain Kind of Poor Folk

[ClosedCaption]

Paul Weyrich - "I don't want everybody to vote" (Goo Goo) - YouTube



this is the founder of the heritage foundation

Bunch of Freedom lovers there aren't they? They'll dry hump the constitution, pics of the founding fathers and claim to love America while seeing NOTHING wrong with wanting only the people THEY want to vote to be allowed too

 

[ClosedCaption]

The trick in this thread is a classic use of the half-truth.

The OP points out some poor cities in the US, then shows they've been mostly run by Democrats...

...the other half of the truth, which of course destroys the OP's trick,

is that the richer cities in the U.S. are also mostly run by Democrats. You know, like San Francisco, or San Jose, CA., or Seattle.

You're right, so the democrats are run by very rich elites that bash on rich people, yet they keep putting in loopho....er deductions.....and blame republicans for it........but you are right the democrats are rich as hell and very poor...not much middle ground......Nice find Carb!!!!!!!!!!

How does your brain allow you to believe two contradictory things at the same time.

Dems run the richest areas and they hate rich people
Dems run the poorest areas and they hate poor people
Dems hate the rich but they are also the rich...meaning they hate themselves

Just dumb

 

[Foxfyre]

I would like to point out that the original article which PC quoted railing against social programs, was posted on the Heritiage Foundation website. The Heritigage Foundation is an extreme right wing think tank which believes that ALL social programs, including public education, should be abolished. All of their research, studies and position papers start with the assumption that all social programs are bad and wasteful, and all private businesses are good.

I agree that social programs are expensive. Especially since virtually every program in the US is "means tested", which adds layers of administration and costs to every program. Studies have shown that "means testing" adds more costs to a program than it saves, but Americans are so obsessed that someone who doesn't deserve it might get a dollar or two, that they'll spend thousands to make sure that doesn't happen.

Any efforts to increase minimum wages, is met with howls of derision from the right, and yet increasing the minimum wage would substanially reduce or eliminate the need for many of the income assistance programs which you rail against. There are lots of ways of reducing dependence on social programs, and all of them start with increasing the wage of workers which have been stagnant for 35 years.

Until you can point to a single quotation anywhere on the Heritage Foundation website that events hints that all social programs should be eliminated, I will have to say that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The Heritage Foundation promote Founders' style conservatism, yes, but you can't back up so silly a characterization of them as you just put out there.

As for Social Security, it is true that it is not yet insolvent. But the hour is upon us that it will be:

Trustees of the programs said Tuesday that Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, one year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner.

Medicare is in even worse shape. The trustees said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year and will be insolvent by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year's report.
Medicare paying out more than it takes in - ABC News

But anyway it is pretty moot since the government spends every penny of any surplus that comes in the minute it hits the treasury and all that is in the trust funds are IOUs and moths.

And it remains right up there at the top of the most inefficient and ineffective programs to relieve poverty among senior citizens that the government could possibly devise. But don't hold your breath that the existing government will do anything other than kick the can on down the road.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Once again we have more proof that the goal of conservative economic policy is widen the gap between rich and poor.

Every policy they support in this area makes lower income Americans a little poorer, and higher income Americans a little richer.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would like to point out that the original article which PC quoted railing against social programs, was posted on the Heritiage Foundation website. The Heritigage Foundation is an extreme right wing think tank which believes that ALL social programs, including public education, should be abolished. All of their research, studies and position papers start with the assumption that all social programs are bad and wasteful, and all private businesses are good.

I agree that social programs are expensive. Especially since virtually every program in the US is "means tested", which adds layers of administration and costs to every program. Studies have shown that "means testing" adds more costs to a program than it saves, but Americans are so obsessed that someone who doesn't deserve it might get a dollar or two, that they'll spend thousands to make sure that doesn't happen.

Any efforts to increase minimum wages, is met with howls of derision from the right, and yet increasing the minimum wage would substanially reduce or eliminate the need for many of the income assistance programs which you rail against. There are lots of ways of reducing dependence on social programs, and all of them start with increasing the wage of workers which have been stagnant for 35 years.

Until you can point to a single quotation anywhere on the Heritage Foundation website that events hints that all social programs should be eliminated, I will have to say that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The Heritage Foundation promote Founders' style conservatism, yes, but you can't back up so silly a characterization of them as you just put out there.

As for Social Security, it is true that it is not yet insolvent. But the hour is upon us that it will be:

Trustees of the programs said Tuesday that Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, one year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner.

Medicare is in even worse shape. The trustees said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year and will be insolvent by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year's report.
Medicare paying out more than it takes in - ABC News

But anyway it is pretty moot since the government spends every penny of any surplus that comes in the minute it hits the treasury and all that is in the trust funds are IOUs and moths.

And it remains right up there at the top of the most inefficient and ineffective programs to relieve poverty among senior citizens that the government could possibly devise. But don't hold your breath that the existing government will do anything other than kick the can on down the road.

What should be in the Trust Funds?

 

[Foxfyre]

I would like to point out that the original article which PC quoted railing against social programs, was posted on the Heritiage Foundation website. The Heritigage Foundation is an extreme right wing think tank which believes that ALL social programs, including public education, should be abolished. All of their research, studies and position papers start with the assumption that all social programs are bad and wasteful, and all private businesses are good.

I agree that social programs are expensive. Especially since virtually every program in the US is "means tested", which adds layers of administration and costs to every program. Studies have shown that "means testing" adds more costs to a program than it saves, but Americans are so obsessed that someone who doesn't deserve it might get a dollar or two, that they'll spend thousands to make sure that doesn't happen.

Any efforts to increase minimum wages, is met with howls of derision from the right, and yet increasing the minimum wage would substanially reduce or eliminate the need for many of the income assistance programs which you rail against. There are lots of ways of reducing dependence on social programs, and all of them start with increasing the wage of workers which have been stagnant for 35 years.

Until you can point to a single quotation anywhere on the Heritage Foundation website that events hints that all social programs should be eliminated, I will have to say that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The Heritage Foundation promote Founders' style conservatism, yes, but you can't back up so silly a characterization of them as you just put out there.

As for Social Security, it is true that it is not yet insolvent. But the hour is upon us that it will be:

Trustees of the programs said Tuesday that Social Security will start paying out more in benefits than it collects in taxes in 2016, one year sooner than projected last year, and the giant trust fund will be depleted by 2037, four years sooner.

Medicare is in even worse shape. The trustees said the program for hospital expenses will pay out more in benefits than it collects this year and will be insolvent by 2017, two years earlier than the date projected in last year's report.
Medicare paying out more than it takes in - ABC News

But anyway it is pretty moot since the government spends every penny of any surplus that comes in the minute it hits the treasury and all that is in the trust funds are IOUs and moths.

And it remains right up there at the top of the most inefficient and ineffective programs to relieve poverty among senior citizens that the government could possibly devise. But don't hold your breath that the existing government will do anything other than kick the can on down the road.

What should be in the Trust Funds?

Every penny that has been paid into them with nothing borrowed against them. They would still be insolvent on schedule, but at least the government would not have used them as an excuse to spend hundreds of billions or probably trillions by now.

It again comes down to the question nobody on the Left seems to wish to address. Is it compasssion to encourage, even create, poverty by making people more comfortable in it? Or is compassion to encourage an economy in which nobody has to be poor?

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

I would like to point out that the original article which PC quoted railing against social programs, was posted on the Heritiage Foundation website. The Heritigage Foundation is an extreme right wing think tank which believes that ALL social programs, including public education, should be abolished. All of their research, studies and position papers start with the assumption that all social programs are bad and wasteful, and all private businesses are good.

I agree that social programs are expensive. Especially since virtually every program in the US is "means tested", which adds layers of administration and costs to every program. Studies have shown that "means testing" adds more costs to a program than it saves, but Americans are so obsessed that someone who doesn't deserve it might get a dollar or two, that they'll spend thousands to make sure that doesn't happen.

Any efforts to increase minimum wages, is met with howls of derision from the right, and yet increasing the minimum wage would substanially reduce or eliminate the need for many of the income assistance programs which you rail against. There are lots of ways of reducing dependence on social programs, and all of them start with increasing the wage of workers which have been stagnant for 35 years.

I'm trying to engage what you said in the last paragraph on another thread, not with much luck. I'm reading a lot of history and economic history about that very thing now. When was America's "Golden Age" economically? Post WW II to the early 70's. And why? Good jobs. There's a reason for the way things are and many forces have dictated it, not just politics. I just don't think people are interested in leaving their partisan trenches to see the real picture. It's like Jefferson said about having the wolf by the tail - you don't like it, but you don't dare let go.

 

[DaGoose]

Well, I have to go get ready for work, now. 19 more days to work after today, and I get to live off the taxpayers! Whooo Hooo! Stereotype all you want.

you know what the differenace between you and me is?


I have no problem with you or anyone collecting SS.

Ayn Rand lived on it too when her historically failed ideas failed right inside her own life.

Thats a good thing.

thats why its there.

the best laid plans of mice and men

"the best laid plans of mice and men"
Ms. Truthie!!!!

Wow....so very glad....and impressed...to see a 'poetry' reference!

Bravo.



But, I don't believe you should have chosen that one, if your intended to support Social Security....
...you see the next line is 'Gang aft agley,'

It means, 'often go astray.'
Mess up.


As with Social Security, messed up:




The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

a. No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

b. No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

c. No one calculated the long-term costs?
"Broke," Beck

d. Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History

e. “Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary.” Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

f. “…redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084.”
Trustees Report Summary



The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

-- "To A Mouse" by Robert Burns

We are all aware of your hatred of that "socialist commie program" Social Security. But on the other hand you'll be hypocritical enough to show up with your hand out when your time comes to collect.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Until you can point to a single quotation anywhere on the Heritage Foundation website that events hints that all social programs should be eliminated, I will have to say that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. The Heritage Foundation promote Founders' style conservatism, yes, but you can't back up so silly a characterization of them as you just put out there.

As for Social Security, it is true that it is not yet insolvent. But the hour is upon us that it will be:



But anyway it is pretty moot since the government spends every penny of any surplus that comes in the minute it hits the treasury and all that is in the trust funds are IOUs and moths.

And it remains right up there at the top of the most inefficient and ineffective programs to relieve poverty among senior citizens that the government could possibly devise. But don't hold your breath that the existing government will do anything other than kick the can on down the road.

What should be in the Trust Funds?

Every penny that has been paid into them with nothing borrowed against them. They would still be insolvent on schedule, but at least the government would not have used them as an excuse to spend hundreds of billions or probably trillions by now.

It again comes down to the question nobody on the Left seems to wish to address. Is it compasssion to encourage, even create, poverty by making people more comfortable in it? Or is compassion to encourage an economy in which nobody has to be poor?

Is it compassion to give a man with a broken leg a crutch? Doesn't that make them more comfortable and encourages never walking again?

Don't be stupid

 

[ClosedCaption]

Isnt it sad that the cons always accuse others of being jealous of the rich and then you take a look at their target of jealousy and its the poorest of the poor because they have too much.

You really have to be some sort of Uncle Scrooge ****** to really be mad at poor people

 

[Foxfyre]

What should be in the Trust Funds?

Every penny that has been paid into them with nothing borrowed against them. They would still be insolvent on schedule, but at least the government would not have used them as an excuse to spend hundreds of billions or probably trillions by now.

It again comes down to the question nobody on the Left seems to wish to address. Is it compasssion to encourage, even create, poverty by making people more comfortable in it? Or is compassion to encourage an economy in which nobody has to be poor?

Is it compassion to give a man with a broken leg a crutch? Doesn't that make them more comfortable and encourages never walking again?

Don't be stupid

If you think my post referred to providing a crutch for a broken leg, I'm not the one who is stupid.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Isnt it sad that the cons always accuse others of being jealous of the rich and then you take a look at their target of jealousy and its the poorest of the poor because they have too much.

You really have to be some sort of Uncle Scrooge ****** to really be mad at poor people

It's the so-called "conservatives" (or their bastardized version of conversativism) who actually believe that today's wealthy gives a **** about them, and they don't. You could have said that in the 1950's and be right. That, and they "think" they themselves are wealthy or have a real shot at being wealthy. It's pretty sad.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Every penny that has been paid into them with nothing borrowed against them. They would still be insolvent on schedule, but at least the government would not have used them as an excuse to spend hundreds of billions or probably trillions by now.

It again comes down to the question nobody on the Left seems to wish to address. Is it compasssion to encourage, even create, poverty by making people more comfortable in it? Or is compassion to encourage an economy in which nobody has to be poor?

Is it compassion to give a man with a broken leg a crutch? Doesn't that make them more comfortable and encourages never walking again?

Don't be stupid

If you think my post referred to providing a crutch for a broken leg, I'm not the one who is stupid.

If you don't know what an analogy is blame your teacher

 

[kwc57]

Right. People are hurting for money because they don't have the proper attitude.
Does anyone actually believe such silly BS?

Sure do.......because I have two nephews, one on my side of family and the other on my wife's side who are just like this. They are both "artists" who move from one menial job to the next while mooching off of their parents so they can "suffer" for their craft. One of them is 28 and doesn't have a pot to piss in. His brother on the other hand is a college graduate working in a Chicago advertising firm. Choices matter. When people have a run of misfortune, I don't have a problem giving them limited assitance. When people choose to live that way.......well, they need to make better choices and not ask me for a place to crash or help paying their cell phone bill.

 

[Foxfyre]

Is it compassion to give a man with a broken leg a crutch? Doesn't that make them more comfortable and encourages never walking again?

Don't be stupid

If you think my post referred to providing a crutch for a broken leg, I'm not the one who is stupid.

If you don't know what an analogy is blame your teacher

I know what an analogy is. Teach the concept actually. So if you don't know how to put one into proper context, blame your teacher.

 

[Truthmatters]

what kind of person calls for not helping others?


a sociopath

 

[ClosedCaption]

If you think my post referred to providing a crutch for a broken leg, I'm not the one who is stupid.

If you don't know what an analogy is blame your teacher

I know what an analogy is. Teach the concept actually. So if you don't know how to put one into proper context, blame your teacher.

Now do you feel better? You claim no one answers your question and I did. Happy?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Right. People are hurting for money because they don't have the proper attitude.
Does anyone actually believe such silly BS?

Sure do.......because I have two nephews, one on my side of family and the other on my wife's side who are just like this. They are both "artists" who move from one menial job to the next while mooching off of their parents so they can "suffer" for their craft. One of them is 28 and doesn't have a pot to piss in. His brother on the other hand is a college graduate working in a Chicago advertising firm. Choices matter. When people have a run of misfortune, I don't have a problem giving them limited assitance. When people choose to live that way.......well, they need to make better choices and not ask me for a place to crash or help paying their cell phone bill.

All they have is Self-Help books to all lifes problems

 

[Foxfyre]

Right. People are hurting for money because they don't have the proper attitude.
Does anyone actually believe such silly BS?

Sure do.......because I have two nephews, one on my side of family and the other on my wife's side who are just like this. They are both "artists" who move from one menial job to the next while mooching off of their parents so they can "suffer" for their craft. One of them is 28 and doesn't have a pot to piss in. His brother on the other hand is a college graduate working in a Chicago advertising firm. Choices matter. When people have a run of misfortune, I don't have a problem giving them limited assitance. When people choose to live that way.......well, they need to make better choices and not ask me for a place to crash or help paying their cell phone bill.

It really goes to the heart of the thesis of the OP.

In order to keep themselves in positions they use to increase their power, prestige, influence, and personal fortunes, our elected leaders, bureaucrats, and appointees have powerful incentive to keep as many people dependent on big government as possible.

So you have whole generations of kids growing up not watching Mom and Dad get up, get cleaned up and dressed, and work for their money. Instead they are watching Mom or Dad get that government check, food stamps, etc. without apparently lifting a finger and then enjoying watching soaps, eating potato chips, drinking beer, cigs (or pot). So, when school or a job is boring or a drag or too hard and it is unpopular, even dangerous, to be different from everybody else, it is all too easy to shrug, not try very hard, and figure the government will send you a check too. For sure if you have a kid out of wedlock, the government money will come pouring in.

And the government sure isn't going to do anything to reduce that big, beautiful voting bloc they can count on.

And folks, that isn't compassion.

 

[PoliticalChic]

you know what the differenace between you and me is?


I have no problem with you or anyone collecting SS.

Ayn Rand lived on it too when her historically failed ideas failed right inside her own life.

Thats a good thing.

thats why its there.

the best laid plans of mice and men

"the best laid plans of mice and men"
Ms. Truthie!!!!

Wow....so very glad....and impressed...to see a 'poetry' reference!

Bravo.



But, I don't believe you should have chosen that one, if your intended to support Social Security....
...you see the next line is 'Gang aft agley,'

It means, 'often go astray.'
Mess up.


As with Social Security, messed up:




The Social Security plan was that workers would pay for retirees, and, based on actuarial tables, those who died earlier than expected would add to the fund.

a. No one considered that life expectancy would increase?

b. No one considered that the balance of workers and retirees might change?

c. No one calculated the long-term costs?
"Broke," Beck

d. Ida May Fuller, the first person to begin receiving benefits, in January, 1940, when she was 65- she lived to be 100. “…worked for three years under the Social Security program. The accumulated taxes on her salary during those three years was a total of $24.75. Her initial monthly check was $22.54. During her lifetime she collected a total of $22,888.92 in Social Security benefits.” Social Security History

e. “Social Security will pay out more this year than it gets in payroll taxes, marking the first time since the program will be in the red since it was overhauled in 1983, according to the annual authoritative report released Thursday by the program's actuary.” Social Security in the red this year - Washington Times

f. “…redeeming trust fund assets until reserves are exhausted in 2037, at which point tax income would be sufficient to pay about 75 percent of scheduled benefits through 2084.”
Trustees Report Summary



The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy!

-- "To A Mouse" by Robert Burns

Social Security was not 'in the red' last year. That is idiocy. Social Security payouts were covered by payroll tax receipts plus some of the year's interest earned on Trust Fund securities.

The principal in the Trust Fund actually increased.

Stop posting lies, please.

It's the same old story.

Instead of suggesting that others are incorrect, liars regularly scream that others are liars.

"The federal government for the first time in its history had to borrow money in 2010 to cover Social Security benefits to retired and disabled workers — a trend that worsened in 2011 and will not change at any point in the future unless changes are made.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in a January 2012 report estimated that the 2012 shortfall will be $59 billion — rising to $76 billion in 2013, $86 billion in 2014 and $86 billion again in 2015. The CBO does not project beyond 2015 because “CBO projects the DI trust fund will be exhausted during fiscal year 2016.”
FactCheck.org : Durbin (Again) Denies Social Security?s Red Ink



But, in the case of the above poster....it is tinged with his regular and characteristic stupidity.

In fact, if the government ever declared war on stupidity, he'd be subject to a drone strike.