Failure of the Welfare State

[NYcarbineer]

If you want to be reminded what real poverty looks like, take a look at the countries with little or no social safety net, little or no government spending on the poor.

Contrary to what comically daft rightwing 'logic' would have you believe...

...neglecting or ignoring the poor does not make poverty disappear.

Most of you should have the sense to understand that without having to be reminded.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I think Lefty would rather talk about Romney's dog.

I don't think they would considering this

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_5C45Al7wY]Obama Admits that He Ate Dog Meat (OFFICIAL HD) - YouTube[/ame]

eeeewwww.


Eating family pets is unAmerican.


At least he is still against slaughtering Horses for food.

So, who's claiming he's American?

 

[gallantwarrior]

"Give a man a fish, you have fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you have fed him for a lifetime" -Someone who isn't me

Oh, that old canard again. The real story is: "Give a man a fish, you have fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he spends a considerable amount of the rest of his life in a boat drinking beer."

Not if they are muslim or mormon

Why? Are Muslims and Mormons afraid of boats?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If you want to be reminded what real poverty looks like, take a look at the countries with little or no social safety net, little or no government spending on the poor.

Contrary to what comically daft rightwing 'logic' would have you believe...

...neglecting or ignoring the poor does not make poverty disappear.

Most of you should have the sense to understand that without having to be reminded.

"If you want to be reminded what real poverty looks like,...."

Wow...it is true that even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and then.
In this case, a nut finding a nut....

Here is the definition of poverty: no food, no heat, no home.


The government definition of poverty:
1. 'Poverty’ may be illusory. It exists in the context in which we discuss it, based on a dollar figure, …the government “developed poverty thresholds. based on the "thrifty food plan," which was the cheapest of four food plans developed by the Department of Agriculture. The food plan was "designed for temporary or emergency use when funds are low," according to the USDA. Based on the 1955 Household Food Consumption Survey from the USDA (the latest available survey at the time), Orshansky knew that families of three or more persons spent about one third of their after-tax income on food, then multiplied the cost of the USDA economy food plan by three to arrive at the minimal yearly income a family would need. Using 1963 as a base year, she calculated that a family of four, two adults and two children would spend $1,033 for food per year. Using her formula based on the 1955 survey, she arrived at $3,100 a year ($1,033 x3) as the poverty threshold for a family of four in 1963….Each year, the U.S. Census Bureau updates the poverty threshold to account for inflation.” How We Measure Poverty
How We Measure Poverty - Oregon Center for Public Policy


2. But even this capricious calculation wasn't good enough for a government desirous of increasing the appearance of 'poverty'....


"The new Obama poverty measure fails. It flunks the test of political neutrality and is based on misleading statistics that not one American in 100,000 could possibly understand, says columnist Robert J. Samuelson.

That's because the new calculation would measure poverty on a sliding scale. Thus, if the average income of families in the United States increases so too does the poverty threshold. Talk about keeping up with the Jones. This new measure provides the perfect climate for left-leaning politicians to promote equalization of wealth through redistribution. The measure would bump poverty up 30 percent: more poverty equals more political fodder to argue for increased welfare."
Robert J. Samuelson - Why Obama's poverty rate measure misleads

Bet you didn't know any of that...did you?
But, then, there is so much that you don't know.........

 

[francoHFW]

Welfare doesn't get people out of poverty, it barely gets people thru hard times, and no one wants to be on it. RWers want people on welfare to cry ALL THE TIME, never borrow a car or live in a relatives house, which they get WRONG all the time- ASSHOLES LOL.
It's education, training and jobs programs that do that, and what Pubs have ruined for 30 years, while pandering to the rich, who have almost tripled their weath while the non rich and the country are slowly ruined.
Chic, you're a brainwashed RW zombie... read a paper or something.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Welfare doesn't get people out of poverty, it barely gets people thru hard times, and no one wants to be on it. RWers want people on welfare to cry ALL THE TIME, never borrow a car or live in a relatives house, which they get WRONG all the time- ASSHOLES LOL.
It's education, training and jobs programs that do that, and what Pubs have ruined for 30 years, while pandering to the rich, who have almost tripled their weath while the non rich and the country are slowly ruined.
Chic, you're a brainwashed RW zombie... read a paper or something.

I love your posts, tug, for several reasons....

1. You are refreshingly without depth. One gets tired of all these ‘still waters that run deep.’
You, on the other hand, are a fast-running, shallow stream…I can even touch bottom with you.

2. Your post are so rife with abject ignorance that the door swings wide open for those of us with corrections.

Shall we begin?

a. "Welfare doesn't get people out of poverty,"
OMG! Right!
…you are correct! That’s an event that usually accompanies a parting sea or a stone tablet!!!
The Welfare Industry is a totally owned subsidiary of Liberalism! Even you must know that...
...and it is designed to keep the clientele in captivity....'on the plantation,' so to speak.


b. "...it barely gets people thru hard times,..."
It was too much to expect you to be right twice in a row.
Take the poverty level for a family of four...$23,050 http://coverageforall.org/pdf/FHCE_FedPovertyLevel.pdf

Ignorant folks (insert your name here) don't realize that welfare transfers provide another 78% of the income to that, for an equivalent income of about $100,000!

a. In 2001 cash and in-kind transfers accounted for 77.8% of said recipients’ income. How fair is it for the Left to tell you that their income is actually 22.2% of what it actually is? Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 28


That means that families that EARN about $55K are providing welfare of about twice that!!!
Good job, Liberals!


c. "RWers want people on welfare to cry ALL THE TIME,...blah, blah, blah...."
Now for reality:
"In fact, the only appreciable decline [in poverty] occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage
of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of
1996)."
Scribd
That was because of Republicans!


Geee....I hope I didn't overtax your little pea-brain, tug......

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

It is the oldest lesson in the human experience. If you teach someone to do something for themselves then you engender self-reliance. If you give them everything that they need, you breed reliance and dependency. The left only has to look to the American Indians and the reservations to see what their entitlement mind set brings. But no, let's continue to 'give' and hope for a different outcome.

The south side of Chicago is a war zone. Hundreds of millions of dollars has done nothing to stem the tide of poverty, out-of-wedlock births and crime. Yet, we hear the same things today we have heard since LBJ... We must provide for those who do not have. What we must do is to provide a means to work your way out of the cycle of poverty... if you do not take the way out, then you're on your own.

Another EXCELLENT thread by Political Chic!

Quoted for truth.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Oh, that old canard again. The real story is: "Give a man a fish, you have fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he spends a considerable amount of the rest of his life in a boat drinking beer."

Not if they are muslim or mormon

Why? Are Muslims and Mormons afraid of boats?

No but neither drinks alcohol, that is if they honor their faith.

 

[Claudette]

Welfare doesn't get people out of poverty, it barely gets people thru hard times, and no one wants to be on it. RWers want people on welfare to cry ALL THE TIME, never borrow a car or live in a relatives house, which they get WRONG all the time- ASSHOLES LOL.
It's education, training and jobs programs that do that, and what Pubs have ruined for 30 years, while pandering to the rich, who have almost tripled their weath while the non rich and the country are slowly ruined.
Chic, you're a brainwashed RW zombie... read a paper or something.

I love your posts, tug, for several reasons....

1. You are refreshingly without depth. One gets tired of all these ‘still waters that run deep.’
You, on the other hand, are a fast-running, shallow stream…I can even touch bottom with you.

2. Your post are so rife with abject ignorance that the door swings wide open for those of us with corrections.

Shall we begin?

a. "Welfare doesn't get people out of poverty,"
OMG! Right!
…you are correct! That’s an event that usually accompanies a parting sea or a stone tablet!!!
The Welfare Industry is a totally owned subsidiary of Liberalism! Even you must know that...
...and it is designed to keep the clientele in captivity....'on the plantation,' so to speak.


b. "...it barely gets people thru hard times,..."
It was too much to expect you to be right twice in a row.
Take the poverty level for a family of four...$23,050 http://coverageforall.org/pdf/FHCE_FedPovertyLevel.pdf

Ignorant folks (insert your name here) don't realize that welfare transfers provide another 78% of the income to that, for an equivalent income of about $100,000!

a. In 2001 cash and in-kind transfers accounted for 77.8% of said recipients’ income. How fair is it for the Left to tell you that their income is actually 22.2% of what it actually is? Reynolds, “Income and Wealth,” p. 28


That means that families that EARN about $55K are providing welfare of about twice that!!!
Good job, Liberals!


c. "RWers want people on welfare to cry ALL THE TIME,...blah, blah, blah...."
Now for reality:
"In fact, the only appreciable decline [in poverty] occurred in the 1990s, a time of
state experimentation with tightening welfare eligibility, culminating in the passage
of national welfare reform (the Personal Responsibility and Work Responsibility Act of
1996)."
Scribd
That was because of Republicans!


Geee....I hope I didn't overtax your little pea-brain, tug......

Sure sucks for Ol'Tug when facts get in the way of a good fairy tale.

 

[francoHFW]

What a pile of Pubcrappe LOL! You live in a dream world....keep the BS blinders on....

 

[Claudette]

Speaking of dreamworld and Blinders??

 

[francoHFW]

People on welfare are RICH!! And they love it! Dems want everyone on it! LOL

"I know- tax cuts for the rich, and destroy Medicare...LOL- Run with that...

 

[PoliticalChic]

What a pile of Pubcrappe LOL! You live in a dream world....keep the BS blinders on....

I strive to proceed on the straight and narrow, so if you could provide the truth it would be mightily appreciated.

You do have data with links and sources.....

....don't you?


And, since you're being so helpful, ...You’re probably the right one to ask this….do illiterate folks get the full effect of alphabet soup?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

People on welfare are RICH!! And they love it! Dems want everyone on it! LOL

"I know- tax cuts for the rich, and destroy Medicare...LOL- Run with that...

Yup General Motors, Solyndra, AIG, who else has obama handed out corporate welfare too (yeah i know solyndra went under but those in charge got hefty paychecks that last year )

 

[francoHFW]

Yup, 1 of 38 alternative projects went into bankruptcy. Subsidize Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Health. What tools of greedy rich/corps. Thanks for the Depression, fools. See sig pp3...Pubs are a proven disaster, and you proven morons.

 

[francoHFW]

And Booosh bailed AIG, fool.

 

[OldUSAFSniper]

It is moronic to suggest that Republicans and more specifically conservatives, do not want to provide for those who are struggling, and more specifically those who are handicapped or unable to provide for themselves. That is not and has NEVER been the case. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans and conservatives believe that if you can, then you should work for what you receive. If you are able, then whatever you can do to repay that assistance, you should do it. Further, we also believe that you do not have either a RIGHT or an EXPECTATION of receiving assistance if you are physically healthy.

However, the Democrats believe that there is a RIGHT AND an EXPECTATION of assistance, regardless of condition. They see it as being "compassionate" when as a matter of fact, all it really accomplishes is to sustain abject poverty and morally bankrupt those who subject themselves to it. Some Native Americans have an EXPECTATION and believe it is their RIGHT to receive their headrights and government assistance. If they miss their check, there is an outcry of such magnitude that you could hear it in Canada. There are no jobs on the reservations, yet there is no motivation to go somewhere that there is employment. Why worry about a job when you receive MORE in assistance every month without working. Eventually, sitting at home and watching Oprah reruns on TV gets old and then comes the alcohol and drug abuse.

Finally, I went to the county fair this year. And although it was stuck at one end of the pavillion all by itself with no one around it (we're the REDDEST state in the union), I found the state Democratic party booth. Right there in front was a list of "RIGHTS" that the state Democrats wanted to remind you that you had. At the very top was "A RIGHT TO BE WITHOUT WANT." I kid you not. So I asked the lady in the booth where that right came from, as surely it is NOT listed in the constitution. She began to argue that it indeed was an enumerated right and that each American had a right to be free from want. Stupid is as stupid does...

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is moronic to suggest that Republicans and more specifically conservatives, do not want to provide for those who are struggling, and more specifically those who are handicapped or unable to provide for themselves. That is not and has NEVER been the case. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans and conservatives believe that if you can, then you should work for what you receive. If you are able, then whatever you can do to repay that assistance, you should do it. Further, we also believe that you do not have either a RIGHT or an EXPECTATION of receiving assistance if you are physically healthy.

However, the Democrats believe that there is a RIGHT AND an EXPECTATION of assistance, regardless of condition. They see it as being "compassionate" when as a matter of fact, all it really accomplishes is to sustain abject poverty and morally bankrupt those who subject themselves to it. Some Native Americans have an EXPECTATION and believe it is their RIGHT to receive their headrights and government assistance. If they miss their check, there is an outcry of such magnitude that you could hear it in Canada. There are no jobs on the reservations, yet there is no motivation to go somewhere that there is employment. Why worry about a job when you receive MORE in assistance every month without working. Eventually, sitting at home and watching Oprah reruns on TV gets old and then comes the alcohol and drug abuse.

Finally, I went to the county fair this year. And although it was stuck at one end of the pavillion all by itself with no one around it (we're the REDDEST state in the union), I found the state Democratic party booth. Right there in front was a list of "RIGHTS" that the state Democrats wanted to remind you that you had. At the very top was "A RIGHT TO BE WITHOUT WANT." I kid you not. So I asked the lady in the booth where that right came from, as surely it is NOT listed in the constitution. She began to argue that it indeed was an enumerated right and that each American had a right to be free from want. Stupid is as stupid does...

"A RIGHT TO BE WITHOUT WANT."

Hard to imagine anyone that dumb in more than a gofer role in the organization.

Even FDR didn't go quite that far, in his 'Second Bill of Rights' speech:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.

You'd have to be a 'franco' to go beyond that....

Of course, none are 'rights'...they are entitlements.

 

[SniperFire]

Thanks for the Depression, fools.

Do you really think Clinton, Dodd and Frank read this forum?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Yup, 1 of 38 alternative projects went into bankruptcy. Subsidize Big Oil, Big Pharma, and Big Health. What tools of greedy rich/corps. Thanks for the Depression, fools. See sig pp3...Pubs are a proven disaster, and you proven morons.

There you go, more obama subsidies....he has continued and increased those.