A Certain Kind of Poor Folk

[Foxfyre]

The burden of proof lies on the person who presented as such. You can see that once asked for proof...they disappear...then someone like you steps in demanding proof from the person asking for proof lol

bad cop bad cop...the lame edition

But again you build a straw man even though you obviously can't define one. I did not say that welfare keeps people poor. I said that welfare provides the incentive to elected leaders, appointees, and bureaucrats to keep people poor so they'll keep voting for the people who promise to keep feeding their poverty. There is simply no other conclusion a reasonable person can come to as to why the same failed policies are repeated and funded, in ever increasing scope and amounts, year after year after year, decade after decade.

It is my opinion that reasonable people are interested in getting the maximum bang for our buck and seeing improvement and achievement in what we accomplish. But outside of a very few anecdotal stories that are always trotted out as 'evidence', the welfare system we have has not encouraged people to get out of poverty but continue to provide incentive for more and more people to become more dependent on government.

And again I say that is not compassion.

Oh you went the "suggestion" route. Gotcha...

you're not saying that welfare keeps people poor what you're saying is that welfare keeps people poor...now I see the difference.

Read the bolded...

Have you considered a good remedial reading and comprehension course? Perhaps then you wouldn't look so foolish when you so misread and/or mischaracterize what other people have posted and would also gain at least some kind of perspective for qualifiers and context. There is no course to take, I fear, to remedy those who deliberately cherry pick and twist the words of others in an effort to make it look like they said something they didn't say.

 

[kwc57]

The burden of proof lies on the person who presented as such. You can see that once asked for proof...they disappear...then someone like you steps in demanding proof from the person asking for proof lol

bad cop bad cop...the lame edition

But again you build a straw man even though you obviously can't define one. I did not say that welfare keeps people poor. I said that welfare provides the incentive to elected leaders, appointees, and bureaucrats to keep people poor so they'll keep voting for the people who promise to keep feeding their poverty. There is simply no other conclusion a reasonable person can come to as to why the same failed policies are repeated and funded, in ever increasing scope and amounts, year after year after year, decade after decade.

It is my opinion that reasonable people are interested in getting the maximum bang for our buck and seeing improvement and achievement in what we accomplish. But outside of a very few anecdotal stories that are always trotted out as 'evidence', the welfare system we have has not encouraged people to get out of poverty but continue to provide incentive for more and more people to become more dependent on government.

And again I say that is not compassion.

Oh you went the "suggestion" route. Gotcha...

you're not saying that welfare keeps people poor what you're saying is that welfare keeps people poor...now I see the difference.

Read the bolded...

So if you disagree with her conclusions, refute it with your evidence to the contrary.

 

[ClosedCaption]

But again you build a straw man even though you obviously can't define one. I did not say that welfare keeps people poor. I said that welfare provides the incentive to elected leaders, appointees, and bureaucrats to keep people poor so they'll keep voting for the people who promise to keep feeding their poverty. There is simply no other conclusion a reasonable person can come to as to why the same failed policies are repeated and funded, in ever increasing scope and amounts, year after year after year, decade after decade.

It is my opinion that reasonable people are interested in getting the maximum bang for our buck and seeing improvement and achievement in what we accomplish. But outside of a very few anecdotal stories that are always trotted out as 'evidence', the welfare system we have has not encouraged people to get out of poverty but continue to provide incentive for more and more people to become more dependent on government.

And again I say that is not compassion.

Oh you went the "suggestion" route. Gotcha...

you're not saying that welfare keeps people poor what you're saying is that welfare keeps people poor...now I see the difference.

Read the bolded...

So if you disagree with her conclusions, refute it with your evidence to the contrary.

Why should I this seems to be a fact free debate when ppl say whatever they want and present it as truth. Then when I ask for proof, I'm told to prove the untrue thing to be untrue....ROFL, seriously?

He says welfare keeps ppl poor by *blank blank blank*! Then says he's not saying welfare keeps you poor because he threw in more words between the two.


Again, I ask Fox, if welfare keeps ppl poor and that is not just your opinion. Where is the proof that that is true?

It's only the third time and everytime I ask Fox goes a little deeper into her bag of insults. She doesn't even know where the bag of facts are anymore, her whole head in in the insult bag at this point

 

[PoliticalChic]

What you fail to understand is that it is the veracity of the statement, data, in question rather than the source.

That is why folks like you gripe about Heritage, or Cato.....but avoid dealing with the facts that they provide.
For the Left, obfuscation is farm more efficacious than debate.



You have some gripe with the folks who provide the material?

Well then....I always wonder why folks like you didn't stop using Arabic numerals after 9/11.

The Heritage Foundation, and the Fraser Institute in Canada, are both extreme right wing think tanks which start with a point of view and then fit the facts to go along with it. Yes, some of what they say is true, but their solutions are always tilted to a "business first" solution.

De-regulation of businesses is not the panacea The Heritage and the Fraser present it to be. At least the Fraser is honest about its agenda, which includes the elimination of the public school system, and the dismantling of the Canadian Health Care Act so that Canada can embrace the American style freemarket health system.

American workers enjoy few protections under American "at will" labour laws, which is why American workers have been so easily displaced by workers in Third World Countries and are forced to work whatever hours their employers deem reasonable. Yes they can go elsewhere, but low skill workers have a higher rate of unemployment that most so those people have few, if any, protections.

But you're a "extreme left wing chunk tank".....so wherein lies your believability?

 

[Foxfyre]

Oh you went the "suggestion" route. Gotcha...

you're not saying that welfare keeps people poor what you're saying is that welfare keeps people poor...now I see the difference.

Read the bolded...

So if you disagree with her conclusions, refute it with your evidence to the contrary.

Why should I this seems to be a fact free debate when ppl say whatever they want and present it as truth. Then when I ask for proof, I'm told to prove the untrue thing to be untrue....ROFL, seriously?

He says welfare keeps ppl poor by *blank blank blank*! Then says he's not saying welfare keeps you poor because he threw in more words between the two.


Again, I ask Fox, if welfare keeps ppl poor and that is not just your opinion. Where is the proof that that is true?

It's only the third time and everytime I ask Fox goes a little deeper into her bag of insults. She doesn't even know where the bag of facts are anymore, her whole head in in the insult bag at this point

Again dear, I have not at any time or in any place or in any context said that welfare keeps people poor. I said that welfare provides an incentive for people to remain poor and an incentive for government to keep them poor. I know that is probably a concept too complex for you to be able to see the difference. But I can assure you, most thinking people can.

P.S. I only insult those who insult me first and at least attempt to be creative about it.

 

[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

Here's what you said. Is it compassion to create poverty by making ppl comfortable in it. You ARE talking about welfare right? Welfare is encouraging, even creating poverty?

Or are you saying something completely different than the quote?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh you went the "suggestion" route. Gotcha...

you're not saying that welfare keeps people poor what you're saying is that welfare keeps people poor...now I see the difference.

Read the bolded...

So if you disagree with her conclusions, refute it with your evidence to the contrary.

Why should I this seems to be a fact free debate when ppl say whatever they want and present it as truth. Then when I ask for proof, I'm told to prove the untrue thing to be untrue....ROFL, seriously?

He says welfare keeps ppl poor by *blank blank blank*! Then says he's not saying welfare keeps you poor because he threw in more words between the two.


Again, I ask Fox, if welfare keeps ppl poor and that is not just your opinion. Where is the proof that that is true?

It's only the third time and everytime I ask Fox goes a little deeper into her bag of insults. She doesn't even know where the bag of facts are anymore, her whole head in in the insult bag at this point

Welfare is designed to keep people on welfare....therefore, by definition, to keep 'em poor.

No prob proving that.


1. Of course, our Liberals have made certain that their ‘client base’ cannot escape! There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!


a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.


b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month.

As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)”
The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap



Liberals: out to help the poor?

Another myth exploded.



BTW....the work mandate of the Clinton welfare reform worked well:
"Overall poverty, child poverty, and black child poverty have all dropped substantially
Although liberals predicted that welfare reform would push an additional 2.6 million persons into poverty, the U.S. Bureau of the Census reports there are 3.5 million fewer people living in poverty today than there were in 1995 (the last year before the reform).
Some 2.9 million fewer children live in poverty today than in 1995

Decreases in poverty have been greatest among black children
In fact, the poverty rate for black children is now at the lowest point in U.S. history. There are 1.2 million fewer black children in poverty today than there were in the mid-1990s.

Hunger among children has been cut roughly in half
According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), there are 420,000 fewer hungry children today than at the time welfare reform was enacted.

welfare caseloads have been cut nearly in half
and employment of the most disadvantaged single mothers has increased from 50 percent to 100 percent.
The Continuing Good News About Welfare Reform



So what did Obama do?
"Obama kills welfare reform"
Obama kills welfare reform - The Hill


Yup....Libs keep the poor poor.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

So the Trust Fund should never have been invested? What idiot recommends you do that with your retirement savings?

As for helping the poor encourages them to stay poor,

you tell us, where in the world has poverty ever disappeared because the government gave the poor no help?

Show us where your plan has ever worked.

btw, did you notice that the OP claims poverty has been eradicated. Why don't you ***** at her for awhile?

Because she didn't say that and she hasn't bitched at me re my point of view. You have. She was very specific in the OP re the definition of poverty, however. You however, do seem determined to put words in my mouth that I haven't said and keep building straw men that do not apply to the OP and assuming a plan that I have not suggested.

Please answer this specific question:

What is more compassionate? To build a society and economy in which people do not have to be poor and are encouraged not to be?

Or to continue policies that appear to encourage a substantial percentage of people to remain poor?

She believes we have eradicated poverty according to her own definition of poverty which she thinks is the proper one so she is admitting that the war on poverty, using her own definitions,

has been a tremendous success.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Uh, where is the proof again?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

So the Trust Fund should never have been invested? What idiot recommends you do that with your retirement savings?

As for helping the poor encourages them to stay poor,

you tell us, where in the world has poverty ever disappeared because the government gave the poor no help?

Show us where your plan has ever worked.

btw, did you notice that the OP claims poverty has been eradicated. Why don't you ***** at her for awhile?

Because she didn't say that and she hasn't bitched at me re my point of view. You have. She was very specific in the OP re the definition of poverty, however. You however, do seem determined to put words in my mouth that I haven't said and keep building straw men that do not apply to the OP and assuming a plan that I have not suggested.

Please answer this specific question:

What is more compassionate? To build a society and economy in which people do not have to be poor and are encouraged not to be?

Or to continue policies that appear to encourage a substantial percentage of people to remain poor?

How does a society encourage people not to be poor?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

So if we take away all the government help that goes to those poor people, and make our poor people look like Africa's poor people, or India's poor people,

how exactly does that make America a better place? ...other than obviously making you feel good that you could see real people suffering real poverty...

Don't look now but you just built another straw man. Nobody on the Right is talking about making our poor people look like Africa's poor people. Those on the right are looking at how we can eliminate poverty as much as possible. And we see paying people to remain poor and/or to engage in choices that will likely make them poor as not a really practical way to accomplish that. It is for damn sure that the mega trillions we have now poured into the war on poverty has not accomplished much other than creating a huge voting bloc useful to opportunistic elected leaders, bureaucrats, and appointees.

Those of us who believe compassion is to make things better and not just sustain an unpalatable status quo, think we should be looking at better and more productive ways to do things.

Some on your side of the fence seem interested in only accusing us of being heartless, hating the poor, and wanting to end all social programs because we suggest that.

Yes you are trying to make us look like Africa. The only reason our poor don't look like African poor, or any of the poor in the world where no help is given

is because we GIVE them help.

If conservatives had had enough votes over the years to have stopped them, there would be no food stamps, no Medicaid, no welfare, no housing assistance, etc., etc., etc.,

and our poor WOULD look like the poor in the third world.

NAME THE PLACES WHERE NEGLECTING/IGNORING THE NEEDS OF THE POOR HAS GOTTEN RID OF POVERTY.

That is your plan, show us where it has worked.

 

[ClosedCaption]

@ NYcarb

The answer to that question Is Nowheresville, USA

They believe that everyone in poverty is there because they simply don't have the will to will themselves millions of dollars.

 

[Foxfyre]

So if we take away all the government help that goes to those poor people, and make our poor people look like Africa's poor people, or India's poor people,

how exactly does that make America a better place? ...other than obviously making you feel good that you could see real people suffering real poverty...

Don't look now but you just built another straw man. Nobody on the Right is talking about making our poor people look like Africa's poor people. Those on the right are looking at how we can eliminate poverty as much as possible. And we see paying people to remain poor and/or to engage in choices that will likely make them poor as not a really practical way to accomplish that. It is for damn sure that the mega trillions we have now poured into the war on poverty has not accomplished much other than creating a huge voting bloc useful to opportunistic elected leaders, bureaucrats, and appointees.

Those of us who believe compassion is to make things better and not just sustain an unpalatable status quo, think we should be looking at better and more productive ways to do things.

Some on your side of the fence seem interested in only accusing us of being heartless, hating the poor, and wanting to end all social programs because we suggest that.

Yes you are trying to make us look like Africa. The only reason our poor don't look like African poor, or any of the poor in the world where no help is given

is because we GIVE them help.

If conservatives had had enough votes over the years to have stopped them, there would be no food stamps, no Medicaid, no welfare, no housing assistance, etc., etc., etc.,

and our poor WOULD look like the poor in the third world.

NAME THE PLACES WHERE NEGLECTING/IGNORING THE NEEDS OF THE POOR HAS GOTTEN RID OF POVERTY.

That is your plan, show us where it has worked.

Doesn't it embarrass you to have to rewrite what others say to the extent you do in order to have any argument at all? I can't remember a single post on this or any other thread suggesting that the needs of the poor should be neglected or ignored. Perhaps you could point one out?

 

[Foxfyre]

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

Here's what you said. Is it compassion to create poverty by making ppl comfortable in it. You ARE talking about welfare right? Welfare is encouraging, even creating poverty?

Or are you saying something completely different than the quote?

Yep. I have said and will continue to say that welfare encourages, even creates poverty. And I have gone into some detail to back up my rationale for the statement. And I will point to the roughly 50% or so of Americans who are now receiving some sort of federal government benefit as the evidence.

But there is a big difference between encouraging and creating poverty and 'keeping people in poverty' which was your phrase that I took exception to. Nobody is forced or required to be poor via government or social mandate. But if you lose those government benefits when you become more affluent, a whole lot of folks aren't willing to risk their food stamps, subsidized housing, cash, Medicaid, free phones, free child care, etc. etc. etc. They become comfortable in dependency and no longer try to dig themselves out.

And their children see the parent enjoying life on the couch with all the free stuff, and he or she may be less motivated to do the hard work to educate himself/herself or acquire marketable skills that would pay good wages. The local gang provides protection and a feeling of self worth without doing all the hard stuff. It looks real good to the young girl who can get all that free stuff just by allowing herself to get pregnant and have a kid or two or ten so that the government will support it/them and her for decades.

We have tried the Great Society method now for almost 50 years now at a cost of, by some estimates, $16 trillion to date which coincidentally is about the amount of the National Debt. We have seen our schools decline, a breakdown in the traditional American family, an increase in government to the point nobody really knows what the money actually goes for any more. And the poor are still with us.

I think it might be the compassionate way to look at whether what we do hurts more than it helps and figure out how to do it better.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Don't look now but you just built another straw man. Nobody on the Right is talking about making our poor people look like Africa's poor people. Those on the right are looking at how we can eliminate poverty as much as possible. And we see paying people to remain poor and/or to engage in choices that will likely make them poor as not a really practical way to accomplish that. It is for damn sure that the mega trillions we have now poured into the war on poverty has not accomplished much other than creating a huge voting bloc useful to opportunistic elected leaders, bureaucrats, and appointees.

Those of us who believe compassion is to make things better and not just sustain an unpalatable status quo, think we should be looking at better and more productive ways to do things.

Some on your side of the fence seem interested in only accusing us of being heartless, hating the poor, and wanting to end all social programs because we suggest that.

Yes you are trying to make us look like Africa. The only reason our poor don't look like African poor, or any of the poor in the world where no help is given

is because we GIVE them help.

If conservatives had had enough votes over the years to have stopped them, there would be no food stamps, no Medicaid, no welfare, no housing assistance, etc., etc., etc.,

and our poor WOULD look like the poor in the third world.

NAME THE PLACES WHERE NEGLECTING/IGNORING THE NEEDS OF THE POOR HAS GOTTEN RID OF POVERTY.

That is your plan, show us where it has worked.

Doesn't it embarrass you to have to rewrite what others say to the extent you do in order to have any argument at all? I can't remember a single post on this or any other thread suggesting that the needs of the poor should be neglected or ignored. Perhaps you could point one out?

Then what are you complaining about?

You agree with all the money we spend on the poor? That's your new position?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So the Trust Fund should never have been invested? What idiot recommends you do that with your retirement savings?

As for helping the poor encourages them to stay poor,

you tell us, where in the world has poverty ever disappeared because the government gave the poor no help?

Show us where your plan has ever worked.

btw, did you notice that the OP claims poverty has been eradicated. Why don't you ***** at her for awhile?

Because she didn't say that and she hasn't bitched at me re my point of view. You have. She was very specific in the OP re the definition of poverty, however. You however, do seem determined to put words in my mouth that I haven't said and keep building straw men that do not apply to the OP and assuming a plan that I have not suggested.

Please answer this specific question:

What is more compassionate? To build a society and economy in which people do not have to be poor and are encouraged not to be?

Or to continue policies that appear to encourage a substantial percentage of people to remain poor?

How does a society encourage people not to be poor?

No answer?

Of course not.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Here's what you said. Is it compassion to create poverty by making ppl comfortable in it. You ARE talking about welfare right? Welfare is encouraging, even creating poverty?

Or are you saying something completely different than the quote?

Yep. I have said and will continue to say that welfare encourages, even creates poverty. And I have gone into some detail to back up my rationale for the statement. And I will point to the roughly 50% or so of Americans who are now receiving some sort of federal government benefit as the evidence.

But there is a big difference between encouraging and creating poverty and 'keeping people in poverty' which was your phrase that I took exception to. Nobody is forced or required to be poor via government or social mandate. But if you lose those government benefits when you become more affluent, a whole lot of folks aren't willing to risk their food stamps, subsidized housing, cash, Medicaid, free phones, free child care, etc. etc. etc. They become comfortable in dependency and no longer try to dig themselves out.

And their children see the parent enjoying life on the couch with all the free stuff, and he or she may be less motivated to do the hard work to educate himself/herself or acquire marketable skills that would pay good wages. The local gang provides protection and a feeling of self worth without doing all the hard stuff. It looks real good to the young girl who can get all that free stuff just by allowing herself to get pregnant and have a kid or two or ten so that the government will support it/them and her for decades.

We have tried the Great Society method now for almost 50 years now at a cost of, by some estimates, $16 trillion to date which coincidentally is about the amount of the National Debt. We have seen our schools decline, a breakdown in the traditional American family, an increase in government to the point nobody really knows what the money actually goes for any more. And the poor are still with us.

I think it might be the compassionate way to look at whether what we do hurts more than it helps and figure out how to do it better.

"I have said and will continue to say that welfare encourages, even creates poverty."

Provably so.


1. The government conducted a study, 1971-1978 known as the Seattle-Denver Income Maintenance Experiment, or SIME-DIME, in which low income families were give a guaranteed income, a welfare package with everything liberal policy makers could hope for. Result: for every dollar of extra welfare given, low income recipients reduced their labor by 80 cents.
http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/12794.pdf


2. Further results: dissolution of families: “This conclusion was unambiguously unfavorable to advocates of a negative income tax that would cover married couples, for two important reasons.
First, increased marital breakups among the poor would increase the numbers on
welfare and the amount of transfer payments, principally because the
separated wife and children would receive higher transfer payments.
Second, marital dissolutions and the usual accompanying absence of
fathers from households with children are generally considered unfavorable outcomes regardless of whether or not the welfare rolls increase.” http://www.bos.frb.org/economic/conf/conf30/conf30c.pdf


3. “When families received guaranteed income at 90% of the poverty level, there was a 43% increase in black family dissolution and a 63% increase in white family dissolution. At 125% of the poverty levels, dissolutions were 75% and 40%.”
Robert B. Carleson, “Government Is The Problem,” p. 57.

4. " As more folks in a poor neighborhood languish with little or no work, entire local culture begins to change: daily work is no longer the expected social norm. Extended periods of hanging around the neighborhood, neither working nor going to school becoming more and more socially acceptable.

Since productive activity not making any economic sense because of the work disincentives of the welfare plantation, other kinds of activities proliferate: drug and alcohol abuse, crime, recreational sex, illegitimacy, and family breakup are the new social norms, as does the culture of violence."
Peter Ferrara, "America's Ticking Bankruptcy Bomb," chapter five.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Because she didn't say that and she hasn't bitched at me re my point of view. You have. She was very specific in the OP re the definition of poverty, however. You however, do seem determined to put words in my mouth that I haven't said and keep building straw men that do not apply to the OP and assuming a plan that I have not suggested.

Please answer this specific question:

What is more compassionate? To build a society and economy in which people do not have to be poor and are encouraged not to be?

Or to continue policies that appear to encourage a substantial percentage of people to remain poor?

How does a society encourage people not to be poor?

No answer?

Of course not.

Of course it does.

See post #177 for economic data.

See your posts for the mentality that supports same.

 

[Foxfyre]

Because she didn't say that and she hasn't bitched at me re my point of view. You have. She was very specific in the OP re the definition of poverty, however. You however, do seem determined to put words in my mouth that I haven't said and keep building straw men that do not apply to the OP and assuming a plan that I have not suggested.

Please answer this specific question:

What is more compassionate? To build a society and economy in which people do not have to be poor and are encouraged not to be?

Or to continue policies that appear to encourage a substantial percentage of people to remain poor?

How does a society encourage people not to be poor?

No answer?

Of course not.

Sorry. I know it's difficult to believe, but I do have a life and am not watching this thread with baited breath hoping you'll post something so I can respond.

But since you have ignored all my arguments, I will answer you with Benjamin Franklin's words:

"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."--Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766

 

[9thIDdoc]

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 mean you be living off YOUR money, money that YOU set aside via your social security?

Not so.

"According to the institute’s data, a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in. The bigger discrepancies common decades ago can be traced in part to the fact that some of these individuals’ working lives came before Social Security taxes were collected beginning in 1937.

Some types of families did much better than average. A couple with only one spouse working (and receiving the same average wage) would have paid in $361,000 if they turned 65 in 2010, but can expect to get back $854,000 — more than double what they paid in. In 1980, this same 65-year-old couple would have received five times more than what they paid in, while in 1960, such a couple would have ended up with 14 times what they put in.

Such findings suggest that, even allowing for inflation and investment gains, many seniors will receive much more in benefits than what they paid in.
According to this calculation, past and current generations will pay $71.3 trillion in payroll taxes but will receive $93.4 trillion in benefits. Adjusting for past and future transfers from the federal Treasury, the difference between "paid-in" and "paid-out" works out to $21.6 trillion.

the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect. ‘We’ are to get much more under current Social Security laws — to the tune of $21.6 trillion — than we’ll pay into the system. The excess benefits are a ‘return’ on past and current generations’ taxes of $71.3 trillion — and quite a handsome return it is!"
PolitiFact | Medicare and Social Security: What you paid compared with what you get



It is the rich, the ones cursed up and down by the Liberal folk, who will not get back as much.


You really should stop believing government propaganda.


I have a suggestion: ask me when you need the truth.

SSI is/was a non-optional investment. Or a government run protection racket depending on how you want to look at it. Is there something wrong with a small profit on a longterm investment that might not even counter the effects of inflation much less equal actual voluntary investments? What about all the people who don't live long enough to withdraw a dime of what they put in?

"...the exhortation that today’s generations are just getting what they are due based on their forced past tax payments is incorrect

Wrong.