Extra! Infants Win The Election!

[PoliticalChic]

There has never been a successful implementation of removing assistance and making the poors life better. Hundreds of countries provide less assistance to their poor and somehow, their poor do not pick themselves up by their bootstraps...they just suffer

Define "the poor" because imho poor people don't have cars, cell phones, televisions etc.

Typical right wing

You can't be poor if you have a cell phone. Poor people must suffer before conservatives will acknowledge them

Cell phones are cheap, a used car is cheap, you can pick up a color tv on the side of the road.

What costs money is rent, electricity, food, medical care, prescription drugs, car repairs. THAT is where they are poor

Here....let me help you with that:

Poor: no home, no heat, no food.

 

[PoliticalChic]

That is what passes as profound rightwing think?

Same old......pick yourself up by your bootstraps and get a job, you loser!

Well, then....

Allow me to prove his point:


1. With government welfare programs offering such generous and wide-ranging benefits, form housing to medical care to food stamps to outright cash, many reduce or eliminate their work effort.

See...that's what 'losing one's motivation' means.



2. Proof? Sure.
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

a. 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

b. “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.


Here....since you complain that my posts are too long...let me shorten it for you:
You, and all the infants who believe the 'Big Government will take care of you' nonsense are fools.

Provably so.

And so, politichic, being a con tool, continues to continue. Just dogma. Nothing new. Just got badly spanked by an election, but nothing learned. Just keeps posting con dogma. Cut n paste, cut n paste. Say the words. Never, ever, ever argue economic issues. Because if you do, you get crushed. Because you know nothing. You are just a con tool.
Con tools are also known as non-feedback organisms. The human experience has required feedback to be considered, and the mind changes with the information. But cons are non-feedback organisms. Like politicalchic. no need to consider that nasty feedback, or other points of view.

Hey!

Who picked up the rock and let you crawl out???

 

[Skull Pilot]

Typical right wing

You can't be poor if you have a cell phone. Poor people must suffer before conservatives will acknowledge them

Cell phones are cheap, a used car is cheap, you can pick up a color tv on the side of the road.

What costs money is rent, electricity, food, medical care, prescription drugs, car repairs. THAT is where they are poor

Gotcha one choosing luxuries like cell phones at the expense of necessities like rent is the definition of poor

Cell Phone $30 a month
Rent $1000 a month

Get rid of enough 30 dollar a month luxuries and one can pay a large chunk of that rent.

That's just common sense no?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Another rambling unsubstantiated cut and paste


Thank you PC....that was super interesting

You read it? Why?

PC is nothing if not predictable (of course her prediction on the election, predictably, was all partisan and mostly wrong).

 

[rightwinger]

I suppose the new "apply for food stamps and sit on your ass" advice is better in your opinion

There has never been a successful implementation of removing assistance and making the poors life better. Hundreds of countries provide less assistance to their poor and somehow, their poor do not pick themselves up by their bootstraps...they just suffer

That's a fib.


[President Grover ]Cleveland was a stickler when it came to that Constitution and he set a hard standard for other Presidents to maintain. History showed that most would not. Dr. Burt Folsom, in his excellent book, New Deal or Raw Deal, pointed out that "In the 1800s, voluntary organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army were formed to give food, shelter, clothing, and spiritual help to individuals and groups that faces crises.

Sometimes, of course, Congress was tempted to play politics with relief. In 1887, for example, several counties in Texas faced a long drought and some farmers lost their crops. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds for these distressed farmers in Texas. After the bill passed the Senate and House, Cleveland vetoed it, saying, 'I can find no warrant for such an appropriating in the Constitution,' Cleveland said. Such aid would 'destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation.'

He added, 'Federal aid, in such cases, encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.'" Cleveland believed the American people would not abandon its fellow citizens in the Lone Star state. Folsom noted Cleveland's response, "the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."

Cleveland could not be more accurate in his predictions. People not only gave, but did so at a level beyond the imagination of the Texas farmers and the politicians who represented them. Fellow Americans from all over the country gave gifts exceeding $100,000. That amount was more than ten times the amount Congress had tried to take from the taxpayers. The Founding Fathers never saw a "charity" role for government, that perspective was validated in both word and deed by Cleveland's courageous veto and his belief in the American people.
Hurricane Sandy, presidential candidates, and Grover Cleveland

Wise up.

You failed to point to where assistance was removed. It just came from another source

Where was all the private charity during the Dust Bowl?

 

[rightwinger]

Gotcha one choosing luxuries like cell phones at the expense of necessities like rent is the definition of poor

Cell Phone $30 a month
Rent $1000 a month

Get rid of enough 30 dollar a month luxuries and one can pay a large chunk of that rent.

That's just common sense no?

Get rid of your $30 a month cell phone, sell your TV for 50 bucks, sell your clunker of a car

Where is your $1000 a month rent coming from?

You claim they are not poor because they have a stinking cell phone. Show where their other family expenses come from? Rent, food, medical care, prescriptions, electric bill

 

[Rshermr]

Gotcha one choosing luxuries like cell phones at the expense of necessities like rent is the definition of poor

Cell Phone $30 a month
Rent $1000 a month

Get rid of enough 30 dollar a month luxuries and one can pay a large chunk of that rent.

That's just common sense no?

No.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There has never been a successful implementation of removing assistance and making the poors life better. Hundreds of countries provide less assistance to their poor and somehow, their poor do not pick themselves up by their bootstraps...they just suffer

That's a fib.


[President Grover ]Cleveland was a stickler when it came to that Constitution and he set a hard standard for other Presidents to maintain. History showed that most would not. Dr. Burt Folsom, in his excellent book, New Deal or Raw Deal, pointed out that "In the 1800s, voluntary organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army were formed to give food, shelter, clothing, and spiritual help to individuals and groups that faces crises.

Sometimes, of course, Congress was tempted to play politics with relief. In 1887, for example, several counties in Texas faced a long drought and some farmers lost their crops. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds for these distressed farmers in Texas. After the bill passed the Senate and House, Cleveland vetoed it, saying, 'I can find no warrant for such an appropriating in the Constitution,' Cleveland said. Such aid would 'destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation.'

He added, 'Federal aid, in such cases, encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.'" Cleveland believed the American people would not abandon its fellow citizens in the Lone Star state. Folsom noted Cleveland's response, "the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."

Cleveland could not be more accurate in his predictions. People not only gave, but did so at a level beyond the imagination of the Texas farmers and the politicians who represented them. Fellow Americans from all over the country gave gifts exceeding $100,000. That amount was more than ten times the amount Congress had tried to take from the taxpayers. The Founding Fathers never saw a "charity" role for government, that perspective was validated in both word and deed by Cleveland's courageous veto and his belief in the American people.
Hurricane Sandy, presidential candidates, and Grover Cleveland

Wise up.

You failed to point to where assistance was removed. It just came from another source

Where was all the private charity during the Dust Bowl?

1. 'The Founding Fathers never saw a "charity" role for government,...'

2. Do you know how much the American people gave in voluntary charity last year? I do.

3. It is a well-documented fact that Liberals talk about helping others, but it is conservatives who give more money, more time....even more blood than Libs.

4. As I documented earlier....documented....studies have proven that welfare does nothing but decrease motivation, increase dependency, destroy families and add to the behaviors that cause poverty. Thank you, Liberals.

 

[rightwinger]

That's a fib.


[President Grover ]Cleveland was a stickler when it came to that Constitution and he set a hard standard for other Presidents to maintain. History showed that most would not. Dr. Burt Folsom, in his excellent book, New Deal or Raw Deal, pointed out that "In the 1800s, voluntary organizations such as the Red Cross and the Salvation Army were formed to give food, shelter, clothing, and spiritual help to individuals and groups that faces crises.

Sometimes, of course, Congress was tempted to play politics with relief. In 1887, for example, several counties in Texas faced a long drought and some farmers lost their crops. Texas politicians helped cajole Congress into granting $10,000 worth of free seeds for these distressed farmers in Texas. After the bill passed the Senate and House, Cleveland vetoed it, saying, 'I can find no warrant for such an appropriating in the Constitution,' Cleveland said. Such aid would 'destroy the partitions between proper subjects of Federal and local care and regulation.'

He added, 'Federal aid, in such cases, encourages the expectations of paternal care on the part of the Government and weakens the sturdiness of our national character.'" Cleveland believed the American people would not abandon its fellow citizens in the Lone Star state. Folsom noted Cleveland's response, "the friendliness and charity of our countrymen can always be relied upon to relieve their fellow citizens in misfortune."

Cleveland could not be more accurate in his predictions. People not only gave, but did so at a level beyond the imagination of the Texas farmers and the politicians who represented them. Fellow Americans from all over the country gave gifts exceeding $100,000. That amount was more than ten times the amount Congress had tried to take from the taxpayers. The Founding Fathers never saw a "charity" role for government, that perspective was validated in both word and deed by Cleveland's courageous veto and his belief in the American people.
Hurricane Sandy, presidential candidates, and Grover Cleveland

Wise up.

You failed to point to where assistance was removed. It just came from another source

Where was all the private charity during the Dust Bowl?

1. 'The Founding Fathers never saw a "charity" role for government,...'

2. Do you know how much the American people gave in voluntary charity last year? I do.

3. It is a well-documented fact that Liberals talk about helping others, but it is conservatives who give more money, more time....even more blood than Libs.

4. As I documented earlier....documented....studies have proven that welfare does nothing but decrease motivation, increase dependency, destroy families and add to the behaviors that cause poverty. Thank you, Liberals.

Who cares what 18th century politicians thought about social programs? This was an era when dickensonian orphanages and poor houses were looked at as improvements

They took "let em die" literally

 

[PoliticalChic]

Another rambling unsubstantiated cut and paste


Thank you PC....that was super interesting

You read it? Why?

PC is nothing if not predictable (of course her prediction on the election, predictably, was all partisan and mostly wrong).

I LOVE when you prove what an idiot you are!!!

You suggest you didn't read it.....

.....then go on to declare that it was predictable!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

You failed to point to where assistance was removed. It just came from another source

Where was all the private charity during the Dust Bowl?

1. 'The Founding Fathers never saw a "charity" role for government,...'

2. Do you know how much the American people gave in voluntary charity last year? I do.

3. It is a well-documented fact that Liberals talk about helping others, but it is conservatives who give more money, more time....even more blood than Libs.

4. As I documented earlier....documented....studies have proven that welfare does nothing but decrease motivation, increase dependency, destroy families and add to the behaviors that cause poverty. Thank you, Liberals.

Who cares what 18th century politicians thought about social programs? This was an era when dickensonian orphanages and poor houses were looked at as improvements

They took "let em die" literally

Getting upset?

Hey...calm down.....it's OK to be wrong.


Here....let me offer a little music that I believe you might be familiar with....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP34u6rdscs]Howlin' Wolf - Smoke Stack Lightning - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Skull Pilot]

Cell Phone $30 a month
Rent $1000 a month

Get rid of enough 30 dollar a month luxuries and one can pay a large chunk of that rent.

That's just common sense no?

Get rid of your $30 a month cell phone, sell your TV for 50 bucks, sell your clunker of a car

Where is your $1000 a month rent coming from?

You claim they are not poor because they have a stinking cell phone. Show where their other family expenses come from? Rent, food, medical care, prescriptions, electric bill

Just so we understand each other the poor have enough money for cell phones, cars, car insurance and all the other expenses that go along with owning a car, TVs, cable computers and internet but not enough money for rent electricity and food. Correct?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Cell Phone $30 a month
Rent $1000 a month

Get rid of enough 30 dollar a month luxuries and one can pay a large chunk of that rent.

That's just common sense no?

No.

So if your 30 dollars short every month you don't cancel your cell phone or cable?

That's pretty stupid.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Get rid of enough 30 dollar a month luxuries and one can pay a large chunk of that rent.

That's just common sense no?

Get rid of your $30 a month cell phone, sell your TV for 50 bucks, sell your clunker of a car

Where is your $1000 a month rent coming from?

You claim they are not poor because they have a stinking cell phone. Show where their other family expenses come from? Rent, food, medical care, prescriptions, electric bill

Just so we understand each other the poor have enough money for cell phones, cars, car insurance and all the other expenses that go along with owning a car, TVs, cable computers and internet but not enough money for rent electricity and food. Correct?

And 6% of the 'poor' have a Jacuzzi.

 

[rightwinger]

Get rid of enough 30 dollar a month luxuries and one can pay a large chunk of that rent.

That's just common sense no?

Get rid of your $30 a month cell phone, sell your TV for 50 bucks, sell your clunker of a car

Where is your $1000 a month rent coming from?

You claim they are not poor because they have a stinking cell phone. Show where their other family expenses come from? Rent, food, medical care, prescriptions, electric bill

Just so we understand each other the poor have enough money for cell phones, cars, car insurance and all the other expenses that go along with owning a car, TVs, cable computers and internet but not enough money for rent electricity and food. Correct?

If they don't have a car, they have to rely on public transportation and Taxis.

They are poor because they can't afford the essentials in life....food, shelter, electricity, healthcare, transportation

You complain if they have any accumulated any wealth in their lifetime. They may have been able to afford a run down car at some point, they could have picked up a cheap TV and computer, they may even, god forbid have heat and air conditioning. It does not mean they are no longer poor

 

[PoliticalChic]

Get rid of your $30 a month cell phone, sell your TV for 50 bucks, sell your clunker of a car

Where is your $1000 a month rent coming from?

You claim they are not poor because they have a stinking cell phone. Show where their other family expenses come from? Rent, food, medical care, prescriptions, electric bill

Just so we understand each other the poor have enough money for cell phones, cars, car insurance and all the other expenses that go along with owning a car, TVs, cable computers and internet but not enough money for rent electricity and food. Correct?

If they don't have a car, they have to rely on public transportation and Taxis.

They are poor because they can't afford the essentials in life....food, shelter, electricity, healthcare, transportation

You complain if they have any accumulated any wealth in their lifetime. They may have been able to afford a run down car at some point, they could have picked up a cheap TV and computer, they may even, god forbid have heat and air conditioning. It does not mean they are no longer poor

What is poverty? Americans might well be surprised to learn from other government data that the overwhelming majority of those defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau were well-housed and adequately fed even in the recession year 2009. About 4 percent of them did temporarily become homeless.
Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox - By Ken McIntyre - The Corner - National Review Online

 

[Skull Pilot]

Get rid of your $30 a month cell phone, sell your TV for 50 bucks, sell your clunker of a car

Where is your $1000 a month rent coming from?

You claim they are not poor because they have a stinking cell phone. Show where their other family expenses come from? Rent, food, medical care, prescriptions, electric bill

Just so we understand each other the poor have enough money for cell phones, cars, car insurance and all the other expenses that go along with owning a car, TVs, cable computers and internet but not enough money for rent electricity and food. Correct?

If they don't have a car, they have to rely on public transportation and Taxis.

They are poor because they can't afford the essentials in life....food, shelter, electricity, healthcare, transportation

But they can afford the non essentials. The less people spend on non essentials the more they have to pay for essentials no?

You complain if they have any accumulated any wealth in their lifetime. They may have been able to afford a run down car at some point, they could have picked up a cheap TV and computer, they may even, god forbid have heat and air conditioning. It does not mean they are no longer poor

If they can afford to pay for those things then no they are not poor. And I'm all for people accumulating wealth but you have to realize that you don't accumulate wealth if you spend money on shit you don't need.

 

[Rshermr]

Just so we understand each other the poor have enough money for cell phones, cars, car insurance and all the other expenses that go along with owning a car, TVs, cable computers and internet but not enough money for rent electricity and food. Correct?

If they don't have a car, they have to rely on public transportation and Taxis.

They are poor because they can't afford the essentials in life....food, shelter, electricity, healthcare, transportation

You complain if they have any accumulated any wealth in their lifetime. They may have been able to afford a run down car at some point, they could have picked up a cheap TV and computer, they may even, god forbid have heat and air conditioning. It does not mean they are no longer poor

What is poverty? Americans might well be surprised to learn from other government data that the overwhelming majority of those defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau were well-housed and adequately fed even in the recession year 2009. About 4 percent of them did temporarily become homeless.
Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox - By Ken McIntyre - The Corner - National Review Online

And politicalchic resorts to the national review. Again. Poor is poor, PC, it is easy to recognize to those with open minds. You just do not have one. But then, you are a con tool, so that would be obvious.

 

[PoliticalChic]

If they don't have a car, they have to rely on public transportation and Taxis.

They are poor because they can't afford the essentials in life....food, shelter, electricity, healthcare, transportation

You complain if they have any accumulated any wealth in their lifetime. They may have been able to afford a run down car at some point, they could have picked up a cheap TV and computer, they may even, god forbid have heat and air conditioning. It does not mean they are no longer poor

What is poverty? Americans might well be surprised to learn from other government data that the overwhelming majority of those defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau were well-housed and adequately fed even in the recession year 2009. About 4 percent of them did temporarily become homeless.
Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox - By Ken McIntyre - The Corner - National Review Online

And politicalchic resorts to the national review. Again. Poor is poor, PC, it is easy to recognize to those with open minds. You just do not have one. But then, you are a con tool, so that would be obvious.

Wiggle on outta here, Lumbricus.....before some fisherman sees you!

 

[Rshermr]

Just so we understand each other the poor have enough money for cell phones, cars, car insurance and all the other expenses that go along with owning a car, TVs, cable computers and internet but not enough money for rent electricity and food. Correct?

If they don't have a car, they have to rely on public transportation and Taxis.

They are poor because they can't afford the essentials in life....food, shelter, electricity, healthcare, transportation

But they can afford the non essentials. The less people spend on non essentials the more they have to pay for essentials no?

You complain if they have any accumulated any wealth in their lifetime. They may have been able to afford a run down car at some point, they could have picked up a cheap TV and computer, they may even, god forbid have heat and air conditioning. It does not mean they are no longer poor

If they can afford to pay for those things then no they are not poor. And I'm all for people accumulating wealth but you have to realize that you don't accumulate wealth if you spend money on shit you don't need.

So, you your definition of poor is the same as destitute. Why don't you go and try living the way you suggest is not really poor. Then we can talk. Till then, you are simply posting con dogma. Keep thinking that way. There will be another election in a couple years.