The goal of American leftwing politics is about ensuring that no one working 40 hours a week lives in poverty.

[Red Front]

For the left, equality means equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity. Therefore, we must all be poor.

No that's not true. American liberals want equal opportunities but you call that "equality of outcome". A child born to an upper-middle-class family or into wealth has access to a lot more resources than a child born in poverty. The left wants to provide everyone with the resources they need to make it in life. A foundation upon which they can build, regardless of whether they're born into the Trump family, or to an impoverished single mother in the inner city.

 

[woodwork201]

Some. And some take jobs that low skill Americans do want. And need.
But liberals don't care about poor working Americans.

It doesn't matter that some Americans don't want to clean toilets. All Americans want to eat.

If you run a hotel then you pay what it takes to get your toilet cleaned legally. If you're an American who eats, you do the work it takes to earn your keep.

 

[Billy000]

Find any non-vegan dietician in the world who would suggest that what I posted is not among the most healthy planned meals in the history of healthy meals.

And, no, you didn't mistakenly think I had posted 79 cents and edited it to 84 cents. How is that even possible? You lied.

And, for the other person who doubted my post, I posted the screenshots from Walmart's Renton, WA Supercenter, taken in the last 15 minutes.

Here's the maximum SNAP benefit. The ads on the page kept me from getting the bottom section in the screenshot but you get the picture: extremely easy to feed a family on SNAP. No one need go hungry in the US and if a child is hungry then the parent belongs in prison because they were given the resources to feed their child.

View attachment 677132

The meal itself, in theory, is fine. You just know it cost more than $2. Of course you are forgetting about grains. Obviously nutritionists would be expecting that. Not cheap white bread mind you. Whole grain bread. Oh and you’re expecting them to eat the same ******* thing every day. If you were in their shoes you would not do this. I don’t care how tough and manly you THINK you are, if your income sank to this level, you would not be eating this DAILY. Sorry chickens alone isnt going to cut it. Tuna sure as hell isnt healthy to eat daily so you’re going to have to pick a different meat.

I looked at a different post that looked similar. Believe I’m lying if you want but you’re still losing this argument either way lol

I have no idea what you’re talking about with SNAP benefits. What is your point exactly? Youre suggesting people be on a government program because it provides adequate food? Aren’t you trying to say that people don’t need SNAP? You also cited the max amount which is obviously fallacious. The median is what would matter.

 

[Red Front]

No they don't. When I was young, every construction worker I knew, and I knew a LOT of them, was white. Now almost none are. It's not that white people don't want to do construction work, it's that they get paid and fed for not working and illegal aliens work very cheap.

I can tell you this, hungry white people will clean toilets in the hotels.

The government should prosecute capitalists who hire illegal immigrants and also stop meddling in the political affairs of Latin American countries. Stop sanctioning them economically and orchestrating regime change coups and we would see less illegal immigration. But many whites are indifferent to what their government does to Latin American countries, hence they end up being inundated with illegals.

 

[Billy000]

You know what's funny? Left or right, there are probably fewer than five posters on this entire site that have ever said, or are even capable of simply saying, "My mistake. I was wrong."

Here's what you said when you were accusing me of lying:


Now, let's try it again and see if you're capable of admitting your error like a man.

Lol you’re such an idiot. We both know I did admit it. Why you’re still talking about this is kind of pathetic I gotta tell you. It just comes across as desperate.

 

[Rigby5]

The federal government has no authority to address poverty.

Nothing in the opening post mentioned "federal" government.
Although since the feds take so much in taxes, it is a natural.

 

[Billy000]

No they don't. When I was young, every construction worker I knew, and I knew a LOT of them, was white. Now almost none are. It's not that white people don't want to do construction work, it's that they get paid and fed for not working and illegal aliens work very cheap.

I can tell you this, hungry white people will clean toilets in the hotels.

Shut up with your useless anecdotes. They don’t replace statistics. God almighty it’s so dumb lol

 

[Rigby5]

If burger flippers are hard to find, the wages for burger flippers are increased. If the market is flooded with qualified doctors, their pay will decrease. See how that works?

No, that is not how it works.
When an average person can not afford the means of production, then those who do have a monopoly.
So then they can be abusive.

 

[woodwork201]

Welfare is a good thing to some. Some people do have an unfortunate series of events that puts them in a bad place. But most on welfare take advantage of it and abuse it.

Welfare should be limited. After say 5 months welfare is cut by 50% and every month after it's reduced by 10% until it ends. After that you can't apply for welfare again for 3 years. Only one person per household can be on welfare at a time. You have to be a citizen to get it, if you came from another country and became a us citizen you can't apply for welfare until you have lived here as a us citizen for 5 years.

People deserve help from time to time. But most poverty stricken people are in poverty because they have no ambition, a lot of people you need to stop helping them and force them to take care of themselves.

Bill Cosby (rapings aside) was a good guy. He grew up in a ghetto but he decided he wanted to get smarter and work hard. So did Oprah. I'm not saying every ghetto person can be a millionaire but man the bus runs everyday, you can apply yourself and do well if you want to. Where I work we are a food production facility and line mechanics make 40 bucks an hour starting pay and none of them have college degrees and almost all of them started out just working on the line, but they put some time in, learned, showed a desire to do more and ended up being leads, going to maintenance and so on. Anyone can have a menial job and turn it into more but you have to work hard, show a desire to learn, do a good job and most importantly show up to work everyday.

No, welfare is never, ever, a good thing. It is never acceptable to take my earnings at the point of a gun and give it to another, regardless of what caused their hardship - veterans and first responders aside; they earned their help in hardship by defending me. That's on the job protection, though, and not charity or welfare.

Help for the legitimately poor, those who are poor for reasons beyond their control for which they could not have prepared, versus having made decisions to not prepare, should come voluntarily through churches and community charity. From a constitutional viewpoint, local and state governments could even do it but, from a moral standpoint, they should not.

 

[Billy000]

No, welfare is never, ever, a good thing. It is never acceptable to take my earnings at the point of a gun and give it to another, regardless of what caused their hardship - veterans and first responders aside; they earned their help in hardship by defending me. That's on the job protection, though, and not charity or welfare.

Help for the legitimately poor, those who are poor for reasons beyond their control for which they could not have prepared, versus having made decisions to not prepare, should come voluntarily through churches and community charity. From a constitutional viewpoint, local and state governments could even do it but, from a moral standpoint, they should not.

Right so kids don’t matter huh? Their parents didn’t plan well so the kids have to suffer huh? Also, I hate to break it to you, but church charity is not going to solve this problem.

 

[woodwork201]

It's very interesting that all of those who find the facts above to be funny; I've put all of them on Ignore. Proof that they are too dumb, too partisan and mostly supportive of trump.

mostly supportive of trump.

It's always Trump in your mind isn't it? That's why you put people on ignore. You should really get some help.

 

[woodwork201]

A person doesn’t necessarily deserve a well paid job but what they do deserve is a job that isnt keeping them in poverty.

A job has never kept a person in poverty. Job skills (or the lack thereof), on the other hand, do keep people in poverty.

 

[Red Front]

No, welfare is never, ever, a good thing. It is never acceptable to take my earnings at the point of a gun and give it to another, regardless of what caused their hardship - veterans and first responders aside; they earned their help in hardship by defending me. That's on the job protection, though, and not charity or welfare.

Help for the legitimately poor, those who are poor for reasons beyond their control for which they could not have prepared, versus having made decisions to not prepare, should come voluntarily through churches and community charity. From a constitutional viewpoint, local and state governments could even do it but, from a moral standpoint, they should not.

People can choose to have a government that grants people certain rights, including the right to food, housing, healthcare, education, and employment (public sector). That's a matter of choice and in a democracy or a society where the people rule, such laws are based upon what the majority chooses, not a minority. You may not like that, but that's the best we can do now. Your contention that the federal government is taking your tax dollars in order to fund social programs demonstrates you don't understand how the federal government funds itself. It doesn't need you to fund it, because it is the exclusive issuer of the dollar. The budgetary constraints of the US federal government are defined by our GDP, not how much money it receives in taxes. The federal government taxes in order to maintain the value of the dollar and control inflation by taking money out of the economy. State and local governments do rely on taxes to fund themselves and of course the federal government. Why? Because they don't create dollars, the federal gov does that.

So your notion of government funding for social programs is flawed. It doesn't apply to the federal government, only to state and local governments.

More, when you grant people the right to food, housing, healthcare, education, and employment (let's call that the "Economic Bill Of Rights"), you reduce the cost and burden of poverty on everyone, not just the poor. Homelessness is extremely expensive. Housing people is much cheaper. Poverty is expensive for everyone, so it behooves us to eliminate it. I doubt the God of the Bible would object to people creating a government, a social apparatus, that manages public projects for eliminating poverty. Only very confused "Christians", think the government can't establish social programs for the poor and working-class.

 

[woodwork201]

If they are working 40 hours a week it’s stupid to suggest they need to get a second job. If they are working 40 hours a week, they also don’t have time to learn new skills. And yeah, obviously they should be productive in any job they have and do it to the best of their ability. That’s a given. Unfortunately that doesn’t necessarily translate to getting a better paying job. Not everyone has that opportunity regardless of how hard they try.

When I wanted a job in IT, I didn't have the skills. I was working 8 hours a day and commuting 3 hours, total of 12 hours a day with lunch break. I found time to study my ass off, learning new things, passing certification tests which got me interviews and then I sold myself.

Like I said, being poor is far less work than being not poor. People don't stay poor because there is no choice, they stay poor exactly because it is their choice. They make that choice because it's easier than making a change.

 

[woodwork201]

Why are american companies hiring non citizens when american workers of today work so incredibly hard?

I thought the claim of the left is that we bring in so many illegals to do the jobs Americans don't want to do. That's not working hard; that's hardly working.

 

[woodwork201]

Yes some people are like that, but that doesn’t mean as a society we should not attempt this goal. If a person does not have the adequate work ethic for having a job, then I would agree they don’t deserve this adequate income. Plenty of people however would put in the effort. They are people in mind for this goal. I mean if they don’t want to try at all, then yeah, give the job to someone else. Your stupidity however is assuming that anyone in poverty is simply lazy and that isn’t the case. You don’t understand that poverty is a complex issue and the causes are nuanced. Not everyone has the opportunity for a better paying job regardless of how productive they are. It’s a matter of simple mathematics that lower paying jobs outnumber higher paying jobs.

What exactly is the goal that you think we should attempt? Please spell it out.

What ever the goal is, there are zero people who would put in the effort to get ahead who have not already put in the effort and gotten ahead.

Every American today has the opportunity to put in the effort to get ahead. If they want to get ahead, what do we need to change for them to do what they're already choosing to not do?

 

[woodwork201]

I'm not for forcing anyone to retire. But if a person wants to retire they shouldn't consider the company for even a millisecond.

Those who are counted for leaving the workforce are not those who are retiring. They are those capable people, under Social Security age, who simply choose to not work because the government pays them to not work.

 

[Red Front]

When I wanted a job in IT, I didn't have the skills. I was working 8 hours a day and commuting 3 hours, total of 12 hours a day with lunch break. I found time to study my ass off, learning new things, passing certification tests which got me interviews and then I sold myself.

Like I said, being poor is far less work than being not poor. People don't stay poor because there is no choice, they stay poor exactly because it is their choice. They make that choice because it's easier than making a change.

You're comparing yourself to everyone else, in a very sanctimonious, self-righteous way. Assuming that what you're saying is true and not a fictional moralistic story to make a point on a forum, there are people who perhaps, have to work jobs that are very demanding physically and don't have the time, energy, or funds to go to night school, after work. You're comparing your unique condition, situation, and circumstances to that of others, pompously, smugly condemning the poor for not doing what you did. Well, not everyone is like you or is in the same situation as you are. You can be presumptuous, claiming that everyone can do what you did, hence people who are poor, even homeless, should remain that way, without any government assistance, but that's just your personal opinion and lack of social consciousness and compassion for others.

Not everyone is like you or in your situation.​

 

[Dragonlady]

Living in hunger is a great motivator to increase one's job skills. What we need is a hungrier poor class.

I know a guy who lives near me who has spent his entire adult life on welfare. He thinks about getting a job every now and then but if he gets a job all his benefits cut off. He literally loses money by going to work. We need to reverse that; no welfare period. Then working will be worth it and my neighbor will get off of his fat ass by lunch time.

Man, you've nailed every single one of the right wing radical anti-poverty talking points that have been completely discredited in every other first world country in the world. The poor must be kept hungry to motivate them. Are you sure whips and beatings wouldn't add to their fear and desperation and increase that motivation?

The only thing it motivates people to is crime. Lack of opportunity and poverty create crime. The USA has one of the highest rates of poverty in the first world. Only Great Britain is higher. You also have the weakest social safety net in the first world, and the highest crime rate.

These things are connected. When midwestern manufacturing jobs were off-shored, crime and opioid use spiked in counties where auto plants closed, Midwestern rural communities became just as drug ridden and violent as poor inner city neighbourhoods. Poverty and lack of opportunity.

A wholly healthy low-fat, low-carb, low-sugar, high-fiber, meal costs far less than lunch or dinner at the dollar menu.

I've posted this in the past, in multiple other welfare threads (have I mentioned that I do love me a welfare thread) but now I'll post it with Biden's inflation and I'm going to even make it better by adding a salad and some ranch dressing and using frozen rather than the canned vegetables in my previous examples

4 oz of boneless,skinless chicken breast: .84
4 oz of lettuce and tomato salad: .50
2 tbsp of low-fat Ranch dressing: .13
3 ounces of mixed frozen vegetables: .21
1 slice buttered (not margarine) bread: .10

Total meal $1.78

So is that a rounded, delicious, healthy, meal? Less than a dollar hamburger and a dollar drink or fries.

Malnourished children in the US is not a shame on anybody, not even on the government, but on the parents. Parents of children who are eating McDonald's dollar menu more than once a week belong in jail.

Your welfare menu sounds great until you realize that skinless boneless chicken costs $2.00 for 4 ounces, and you can't just buy 4 ounces. The packages are at least one pound. $8.

Where can you buy a lettuce and one tomato for 50 cents? Lettuce is $2.50, and a tomato costs $1.50. Total cost $4

Ranch dressing is $3.50 per bottle. You can't buy a couple of tablespoons.

Frozen mixed vegetables cost $3.49 for a bag.

Bread is $2.69 per loaf, and butter is $3.99.

Your $1.78 meal costs nearly $25 to purchase the ingredients, assuming you don't live in a food desert, and have access to fresh produce, and meat.

A dollar meal requires no additional investment. And it requires no time or energy to produce, or clean up after. When you have the double stressors of poverty and bad diet, and you're working 60 hours a week to keep food on the table, and a roof over your head, as well as run your household, fast food is quick, and requires no physical effort to make or clean up after.

Your arrogance and ignorance regarding poverty, knows no bounds.

 

[Dragonlady]

Those who are counted for leaving the workforce are not those who are retiring. They are those capable people, under Social Security age, who simply choose to not work because the government pays them to not work.

No one is leaving the workforce because the government pays them not to work. No government program pays a living wage to ANYONE.