The Lazy Poor

[koshergrl]

The reality, though, has nothing to do with "entitlement," however you might choose to define it. The reality has much more to do with torches and pitchforks--because if you decide that feudal society, or a right wing monarchy is more "deserving" of wealth, you may find yourself facing "La Guillotine" at some point. "The masses" tend to become upset after inequality reaches a certain level.

Shut the **** up, hysteric. To compare the poor of the US today with the oppressed and starving hordes in France during the Revolution, or the starving people of Russia and China is ridiculous. There is no comparison. So take your rabble rousing bullshit, and peddle it in the grade schools, where you have a captive audience that doesn't know better.

There you go, heading straight for the ditch again. There's an expression, you know--"give 'em enough rope." I'd say your people are real rope gatherers.

No, my people are the ones who go paladin on the pathetic hand wringing losers like you. I am one of those people you wish didn't exist..a poor person, who actually has a brain and enough education to know that you're completely full of shit. I mean to the top. You're spouting lies and passing them off as knowledge that apparently only you have....

Anyway. Peddle your shit where there are real starving people. Try China.

Oh wait...China's that way because they bought that line of crap in the first place.

Well, some of them bought it..the rest just got dead.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Excuse me while I stand over here and LMAO.

Show all of us how Govt intervention has put a dent in poverty??

We taxpayers have been soaked for billions in the War on Poverty and yet Poverty is still here and doing a bangup business.

Loads of freeloaders out there and we taxpayers get soaked so they can sit on their asses and use OUR money.

Yeah. The War on Poverty is working so well. Your an idiot.

Why don't ask the author of this thread? She claims there is NO real poverty in America anymore. She's claimed it repeatedly.

Or, ask yourself, what's the difference, in terms of poverty, in someone who gets a public education, regardless of the ability to pay, Medicaid depending on their income, foodstamps depending on their income - those just for starters -

and someone at the same personal income level who gets NONE of the those things?

Which is poorer? Is that hard for you to figure out?

Actually, your dishonesty is a gift for me.

It opens the door for me to smack you and provide the truth.

Example:
Your attempt to spin the truth and make it conform to your covetous, envy-centered view of the world- "Why don't ask the author of this thread? She claims there is NO real poverty in America anymore. She's claimed it repeatedly."

My posts actually rebut the socialist view of poverty, and explain that there is material poverty, which is practically non-existent in this nation....

...and there is social poverty.


The latter is increasing due to the encouragement of same by Leftist elected officials, and the spawn of the 60's.

1. The colloquial use of “poverty” implies a material deprivation, which hardly exists. But this is not to say that a poverty of social conditions does not exist, and this cannot be remedied with money. In fact, the root cause of this poverty is the perverse, counterproductive incentives arising from the welfare system itself.

2. Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” documented this effect using social indicators such as work, marriage, legitimacy, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse, and showing how the massive increase in government welfare programs worsened the problem.

3. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Liberal government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. 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.

a. 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.

b. "The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.



Now, I realize that you will choose one or two words here and there to try to prove some fallacy or other....

.....but this is your method: the lie of omission.

It is a character flaw....and what you are.

So material poverty is almost non-existent in this country, according to you. That is exactly what I claimed you claimed.

But the people who would otherwise be materially poor are not materially poor because they are assisted materially by the government with material goods and services that lift them out of the material poverty you are talking about.

In other words, the lack of material poverty in this country is only so because of all the government aid that prevents it,

the same aid that you and the rest of conservatism wish to take away all or in part,

and thus return people TO material poverty.

 

[Freemason9]

Wait, I think I might actually see what P.C. is driving at . . . and I might actually agree with some of it.

I'm not a "liberal" in the classic sense, by the way--but I'm sure as **** not a modern American "conservative." Those are largely uneducated, socially inept idiots. Having said that,

I do NOT support welfare payments. I believe that income should ONLY COME FROM LABOR. That applies to everyone. Now, the trick is to create an economic climate that provides full employment.

I happen to believe the right wing aristocracy that controls the "conservative" Republican Party enjoys power by maintaining a social and economic underclass; this is why they obstruct all efforts to stimulate the economy into a full employment circumstance. After all, if the impoverished masses were to disappear, we would like to see a more democratic sort of governance. The right wing always stands opposed to that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All these rightwing nuts bitching about government aid to the poor and not one of them will step up and say they want to eliminate the aid they are bitching about.

It appears that the enjoyment of bitching is the real motivation here.

 

[Spoonman]

Again, allow me to gently remind you of Bastille Day. Be careful when you decide how harshly you should treat the "servant class."

at least those servants worked the fields. our servant class just takes free handouts

No, your so-called "free handouts" are the wages they draw for remaining servants. This is what we pay them to keep them from building guillotines.

i say we cut them off and see how far they get with those guillotines

 

[Spoonman]

All these rightwing nuts bitching about government aid to the poor and not one of them will step up and say they want to eliminate the aid they are bitching about.

It appears that the enjoyment of bitching is the real motivation here.

psssst. learn to read. I said i want to eliminate it. or at the very minimum, make them work for it

 

[NYcarbineer]

Oh god, not this "everything = redistribution of wealth so you can't object to redistribution of wealth" shit again.

Can you please move on to a real argument?

A real argument would be one proving me wrong.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All these rightwing nuts bitching about government aid to the poor and not one of them will step up and say they want to eliminate the aid they are bitching about.

It appears that the enjoyment of bitching is the real motivation here.

psssst. learn to read. I said i want to eliminate it. or at the very minimum, make them work for it

Ok, no more free public education, no more Medicaid, no more foodstamps, and that's just for starters.

How does eliminating that SOCIALISM make America a better place?

 

[koshergrl]

Oh god, not this "everything = redistribution of wealth so you can't object to redistribution of wealth" shit again.

Can you please move on to a real argument?

A real argument would be one proving me wrong.

No, it wouldn't. Because your whole premise is garbage. A LOGICAL FALLACY a.k.a., outright lies.

 

[koshergrl]

All these rightwing nuts bitching about government aid to the poor and not one of them will step up and say they want to eliminate the aid they are bitching about.

It appears that the enjoyment of bitching is the real motivation here.

psssst. learn to read. I said i want to eliminate it. or at the very minimum, make them work for it

Ok, no more free public education, no more Medicaid, no more foodstamps, and that's just for starters.

How does eliminating that SOCIALISM make America a better place?

Because it forces free loaders to fend for themselves.

And it removes the feds from aspects of life they have no business in.

 

[Spoonman]

All these rightwing nuts bitching about government aid to the poor and not one of them will step up and say they want to eliminate the aid they are bitching about.

It appears that the enjoyment of bitching is the real motivation here.

psssst. learn to read. I said i want to eliminate it. or at the very minimum, make them work for it

Ok, no more free public education, no more Medicaid, no more foodstamps, and that's just for starters.

How does eliminating that SOCIALISM make America a better place?

medicade, foodstamps, welfare. lets start there. and as far as education goes, if you are in school you pay attention and listen. if you want to be a disruprion and cause problems get the **** out. we don't need to be wasting money on you. I'm sick of the poor are at a disadvantage because they don't get an education. they don't get an education because they choose not to. so here's the new deal, get one, and get a job. because there is no more gravy train at the end of the line

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why don't ask the author of this thread? She claims there is NO real poverty in America anymore. She's claimed it repeatedly.

Or, ask yourself, what's the difference, in terms of poverty, in someone who gets a public education, regardless of the ability to pay, Medicaid depending on their income, foodstamps depending on their income - those just for starters -

and someone at the same personal income level who gets NONE of the those things?

Which is poorer? Is that hard for you to figure out?

Actually, your dishonesty is a gift for me.

It opens the door for me to smack you and provide the truth.

Example:
Your attempt to spin the truth and make it conform to your covetous, envy-centered view of the world- "Why don't ask the author of this thread? She claims there is NO real poverty in America anymore. She's claimed it repeatedly."

My posts actually rebut the socialist view of poverty, and explain that there is material poverty, which is practically non-existent in this nation....

...and there is social poverty.


The latter is increasing due to the encouragement of same by Leftist elected officials, and the spawn of the 60's.

1. The colloquial use of “poverty” implies a material deprivation, which hardly exists. But this is not to say that a poverty of social conditions does not exist, and this cannot be remedied with money. In fact, the root cause of this poverty is the perverse, counterproductive incentives arising from the welfare system itself.

2. Charles Murray’s “Losing Ground” documented this effect using social indicators such as work, marriage, legitimacy, crime, and alcohol and drug abuse, and showing how the massive increase in government welfare programs worsened the problem.

3. ‘Welfare’ as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Liberal government, and its main result is the incentivizing of a disrespect for oneself, and for the entity that provides the welfare. 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.

a. 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.

b. "The lessons of history … show conclusively that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

These searing words about Depression-era welfare are from Franklin Roosevelt's 1935 State of the Union Address.



Now, I realize that you will choose one or two words here and there to try to prove some fallacy or other....

.....but this is your method: the lie of omission.

It is a character flaw....and what you are.

So material poverty is almost non-existent in this country, according to you. That is exactly what I claimed you claimed.

But the people who would otherwise be materially poor are not materially poor because they are assisted materially by the government with material goods and services that lift them out of the material poverty you are talking about.

In other words, the lack of material poverty in this country is only so because of all the government aid that prevents it,

the same aid that you and the rest of conservatism wish to take away all or in part,

and thus return people TO material poverty.

No, you liar....this is what you said:

"Why don't ask the author of this thread? She claims there is NO real poverty in America anymore. She's claimed it repeatedly."

I have never claimed that there is "NO real poverty..."


You are far too stupid to absorb this, but the fact is that human behavior is dynamic, not static.

As government largesse is provided, individuals decide to work less.

And, once sucked onto the welfare plantation....Liberal regulation prevents them from leaving.

 

[Spoonman]

psssst. learn to read. I said i want to eliminate it. or at the very minimum, make them work for it

Ok, no more free public education, no more Medicaid, no more foodstamps, and that's just for starters.

How does eliminating that SOCIALISM make America a better place?

Because it forces free loaders to fend for themselves.

And it removes the feds from aspects of life they have no business in.

exactly, the government is not a baby sitter. tax dollars should be spent for services on people who pay taxes

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wait, I think I might actually see what P.C. is driving at . . . and I might actually agree with some of it.

I'm not a "liberal" in the classic sense, by the way--but I'm sure as **** not a modern American "conservative." Those are largely uneducated, socially inept idiots. Having said that,

I do NOT support welfare payments. I believe that income should ONLY COME FROM LABOR. That applies to everyone. Now, the trick is to create an economic climate that provides full employment.

I happen to believe the right wing aristocracy that controls the "conservative" Republican Party enjoys power by maintaining a social and economic underclass; this is why they obstruct all efforts to stimulate the economy into a full employment circumstance. After all, if the impoverished masses were to disappear, we would like to see a more democratic sort of governance. The right wing always stands opposed to that.

1. There is no aristocracy in America.

2. There are no impoverished masses.

3. The French Revolution is in no way related to the American Revolution, or to America.

4. There exists no permanent underclass.

5. A careful consideration of your posts suggests that you may be one of the most fundamentally ignorant folks around.

 

[AmazonTania]

I happen to believe the right wing aristocracy that controls the "conservative" Republican Party enjoys power by maintaining a social and economic underclass; this is why they obstruct all efforts to stimulate the economy into a full employment circumstance. After all, if the impoverished masses were to disappear, we would like to see a more democratic sort of governance. The right wing always stands opposed to that.

This doesn't make sense. What sort of demographic does one obtain by making sure there is dependency?

 

[kwc57]

The top 3 government expenditures on the 'poor', or 'low income Americans' if you prefer,

are education, healthcare, and food.

Eliminate all of them, and tell me how when where and why America becomes a better place.

Each is socialism, each is redistribution of wealth, each is taxation on the haves given to the havenots or have less's.

Each is reviled by Conservatism for those very reasons.

And yet we still have the ignorant, sick and hungry around after all these years. Go figure.

Tell us how things would be better if we didn't have those programs.

Tell me how it's changed since we have had them. If the programs were intended to lift the poor out of poverty, it hasn't worked as there are more people on assitance than ever before. If the programs were working, shouldn't they eventually eliminate themselves or be very small in comparison to the past? Do you think another federal job training program on top of the existing 48 or so is the going to be the straw that breaks poverty's back?

 

[Truthmatters]

the wealthy gain when the masses are desperate.

Its been that way all through mans history

 

[Truthmatters]

Ok, no more free public education, no more Medicaid, no more foodstamps, and that's just for starters.

How does eliminating that SOCIALISM make America a better place?

Because it forces free loaders to fend for themselves.

And it removes the feds from aspects of life they have no business in.

exactly, the government is not a baby sitter. tax dollars should be spent for services on people who pay taxes

the majority of Americans dont agree with you

 

[kwc57]

All these rightwing nuts bitching about government aid to the poor and not one of them will step up and say they want to eliminate the aid they are bitching about.

It appears that the enjoyment of bitching is the real motivation here.

OK TDM, you must have a reading comprehension problem. You haven't heard anyone here on USMB say they want to end aid to those capable of helping themselves who won't simply because the government will keep feeding them if they do nothing? Really? I have no problem with assitance to the truely indigant. Giving 1 in 5 Anericans food stamps......I have a problem with.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All these rightwing nuts bitching about government aid to the poor and not one of them will step up and say they want to eliminate the aid they are bitching about.

It appears that the enjoyment of bitching is the real motivation here.

It’s about government aid to the poor being a political weapon and wedge issue only; so yes, it has nothing to do with actually addressing the problem of poverty in America.