The Lazy Poor

[NYcarbineer]

I seem to have missed your post wherein you admit that you are a bottom-feeding, lying, boor...

..based in this:




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..."




Would you mind re-posting your confession?

Let's post your definition of 'poor' and work from there:

2. "...resenting the Poor..."

As prevarication is your mode of operation, a definition will obviate the attempt.

Poor is defined as follows: no home, no heat, no food.

Can you find any who resent such?
No?

Now, using your own definition of 'poor' and given that there are very very very very few Americans who fall under your definition of poor,

do you still wish to deny that you claim there is no real poverty in America?

Well, at least you haven't denied that you are a bottom-feeding, lying, boor...


Good start.

I proved that you are the one who lied, which means I was telling the truth.

You are way out of your league here. Drop down a few levels.

 

[NYcarbineer]

PoliticalChic's belief we have no poor is the single most ignorant statement out of an ocean of ignorant statements I have heard on this board.

.

She stepped right in it with that claim, because the government assistance that she would end is what has lifted the very poor out of poverty.

She believes there are no poor, but wishes to recreate the poor by taking away what keeps them from being poor.

That, btw, happens to be the core belief of conservative economic policy...

...to make the poor poorer by ending or drastically reducing the aid that alleviates their poverty.

66% of conservative superhero's Paul Ryan's budget cuts were aimed at government spending for the benefit of low income Americans.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What help do you provide personally? Insisting that the government tax people with more than you to give it to others in your name doesn't count. What do you personally do to help your fellow man?

I am the president of a non-profit which helps people in actute crises. Which is why I know PoliticalChic is chock full of shit.

You probably don't realize that your comment is a boomerang, if the folks taking from you are laughing at you behind your back....

...you know...like those indicted by Star Parker.


Everyone should do what they believe is correct...
...I just find that you are pretty much, a jerk.

But even jerks can be righteous.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's post your definition of 'poor' and work from there:

2. "...resenting the Poor..."

As prevarication is your mode of operation, a definition will obviate the attempt.

Poor is defined as follows: no home, no heat, no food.

Can you find any who resent such?
No?

Now, using your own definition of 'poor' and given that there are very very very very few Americans who fall under your definition of poor,

do you still wish to deny that you claim there is no real poverty in America?

Well, at least you haven't denied that you are a bottom-feeding, lying, boor...


Good start.

I proved that you are the one who lied, which means I was telling the truth.

You are way out of your league here. Drop down a few levels.

Suffers from Clue Deficit Disorder.

 

[paulitician]

America's 'Poor' are mere pawns in an age-old Political Game. Our 'Poor' live quite comfortably compared to most of the World. So what is being 'Poor' in America these days? It seems the definition keeps changing. The goalposts keep being moved.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Tell us which Democrat/liberal social programs for the poor you would END.

None. But I would limit them to those who actually needed it instead of use them to keep people enslaved and buy votes with them. We've gone from providing assitance to supporting a lifestyle for many.

I would end ALL of them at the Federal level and put the choice to assume the responsibility at the state and local levels where it belongs. That simple solution would remove most of the corruption and graft we find in government and among the recipients of the taxpayer's generosity. It would also provide a means to solve our debt problems as a nation, restore stability to the dollar, eliminate almost all of the bloat and excessiveness of the federal government, and return it to the function the Founders intended.

Excellent.


And, consistent with that plan....


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


There are no people as generous as the American people.
That is the basis on which progressives use taxpayer largesse to keep themselves in power.

There are, of course, a large number who are both soft hearted.....and soft-headed. Several can be seen in this thread.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no real poverty in America.

.

That would be proof that the LIBERAL war on poverty has been victorious.

A war that CONSERVATIVES would have kept us out of.

What have you won? Generations of individuals who are dependant on others.
It is no victory to have a population of infantilized adults.

 

[PoliticalChic]

you have been proven to be a lair with your own words PC.

you can lie about your lies some more but you have been outed for what you really are.

Heck....you know I never lie.

That's what you love about me.

live with the burden of your own words liar

"'she has promoted ideas that include things like "most people are bad".'"
By Ms. Truthie

You know I never said that.....
C'mon, now....apologize.

 

[Foxfyre]

America's 'Poor' are mere pawns in an age-old Political Game. Our 'Poor' live quite comfortably compared to most of the World. So what is being 'Poor' in America these days? It seems the definition keeps changing. The goalposts keep being moved.

That's it isn't it? For some of our friends here--I use the term loosely--if the great god of government proclaims somebody 'poor', then they are. Nevermind that to millions of the world's truly poor, America's poorest would be considered blessed indeed.

And at the same time, there are people who are truly hungry and no person of compassion simply sends them on their way without something to eat.

But to pay those artifically defined as 'poor' in such a way that there is little or no incentive to become unpoor is not only dishonest, but should be 100% illegal when the money is forcibly confiscated from others to create the condition. And when those who create the condition have motive to perpetuate it in order to keep themselves in power with ability to greatly enrich themselves.

 

[g5000]

What help do you provide personally? Insisting that the government tax people with more than you to give it to others in your name doesn't count. What do you personally do to help your fellow man?

I am the president of a non-profit which helps people in actute crises. Which is why I know PoliticalChic is chock full of shit.

You probably don't realize that your comment is a boomerang, if the folks taking from you are laughing at you behind your back....

...you know...like those indicted by Star Parker.

Wishful thinking on your part, of course. That's all you have when you live in a delusional mindset.

Everyone should do what they believe is correct...
...I just find that you are pretty much, a jerk.

But even jerks can be righteous.

Since you don't actually know a single thing about what is really going on and are speaking out of your ass, whereas I actually work in the trenches on this issue, I think we know who is full of shit and who is not.

Your bullshit only works when there isn't anyone around who can call you on it.

And the people who work with me in this area are all deeply conservative, deeply religious people like myself. You are a disgusting, heartless, clueless asshole. You don't even know enough to be ashamed of yourself.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Tell us which Democrat/liberal social programs for the poor you would END.

None. But I would limit them to those who actually needed it instead of use them to keep people enslaved and buy votes with them. We've gone from providing assitance to supporting a lifestyle for many.

So you agree that historically, the Democrats/liberals have been right - in starting these programs -

and the Republicans/conservatives have been WRONG, in opposing them every step of the way.

They are in fact socialism and the redistribution of wealth, btw.

This is proof of why it is vital to keep conservatives out of power.

Hey....I got a note from someone who said I "shredded" you.....

Would it be OK if I addressed you as 'cole slaw' from now on?

 

[Foxfyre]

True story:

My desk was the first people entering the building came to. And our office was the first 'charitable' organization off the interstate. So we got a LOT of transients looking for help. They never seemed to have any identification--it had ALWAYS been stolen. They were always enroute to a new job but they could never seem to provide the name, phone number, or address of anybody where they last lived, nor could they provide the name, phone number, or address of the place they were going to work.

I had worked with the other service agencies in town to form a central clearing house where people would agree to a police background check but could receive food, travel funds, get their utility bill paid, or whatever the truly needy needed. It was a busy place at times.

But very few transients were willing to go through that process. They wanted money for food or fuel. And lest I actually turn somebody away who was truly hungry or who truly needed help, I arranged with a little restaurant, a block away, to accept our voucher for anything off the menu anybody ordered. And I arranged with a gas station, a half block away, to accept our voucher for 5 gallons of gas. I would settle up with the restaurant or gas station later. I knew the owners of both, so I could trust them to report accurately.

I kept track for a year. Out of more than 200 transients provided vouchers for a meal and/or a voucher for five gallons of gasoline, ONE--count it--ONE voucher was turned in for a meal. And two vouchers were turned in for gasoline.

The poor are always with us. But the poor are not always what they seem.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChic's belief we have no poor is the single most ignorant statement out of an ocean of ignorant statements I have heard on this board.

.

She stepped right in it with that claim, because the government assistance that she would end is what has lifted the very poor out of poverty.

She believes there are no poor, but wishes to recreate the poor by taking away what keeps them from being poor.

That, btw, happens to be the core belief of conservative economic policy...

...to make the poor poorer by ending or drastically reducing the aid that alleviates their poverty.

66% of conservative superhero's Paul Ryan's budget cuts were aimed at government spending for the benefit of low income Americans.

"She stepped right in it with that claim, because the government assistance that she would end is what has lifted the very poor out of poverty."

Actually, I go far further than that....I can prove that liberal/progressive 'welfare' increases poverty.


Watch this:

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.



Ya' feel stoooopid, now, boyyyyeeeeeeee??

 

[kwc57]

Tell us which Democrat/liberal social programs for the poor you would END.

None. But I would limit them to those who actually needed it instead of use them to keep people enslaved and buy votes with them. We've gone from providing assitance to supporting a lifestyle for many.

I would end ALL of them at the Federal level and put the choice to assume the responsibility at the state and local levels where it belongs. That simple solution would remove most of the corruption and graft we find in government and among the recipients of the taxpayer's generosity. It would also provide a means to solve our debt problems as a nation, restore stability to the dollar, eliminate almost all of the bloat and excessiveness of the federal government, and return it to the function the Founders intended.

You of course are correct. I was being brief as NYC doesn't really listen anyway.

Good news from a right to work, red state with about half the unemployment of the nation, Food stamp reform to require adults to work | KFOR.com.

 

[kwc57]

PoliticalChic's belief we have no poor is the single most ignorant statement out of an ocean of ignorant statements I have heard on this board.

.

She stepped right in it with that claim, because the government assistance that she would end is what has lifted the very poor out of poverty.

She believes there are no poor, but wishes to recreate the poor by taking away what keeps them from being poor.

That, btw, happens to be the core belief of conservative economic policy...

...to make the poor poorer by ending or drastically reducing the aid that alleviates their poverty.

66% of conservative superhero's Paul Ryan's budget cuts were aimed at government spending for the benefit of low income Americans.

Wow! So do we call all the lies you just told a fairy tale instead of lies?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I am the president of a non-profit which helps people in actute crises. Which is why I know PoliticalChic is chock full of shit.

You probably don't realize that your comment is a boomerang, if the folks taking from you are laughing at you behind your back....

...you know...like those indicted by Star Parker.

Wishful thinking on your part, of course. That's all you have when you live in a delusional mindset.

Everyone should do what they believe is correct...
...I just find that you are pretty much, a jerk.

But even jerks can be righteous.

Since you don't actually know a single thing about what is really going on and are speaking out of your ass, whereas I actually work in the trenches on this issue, I think we know who is full of shit and who is not.

Your bullshit only works when there isn't anyone around who can call you on it.

And the people who work with me in this area are all deeply conservative, deeply religious people like myself. You are a disgusting, heartless, clueless asshole. You don't even know enough to be ashamed of yourself.

1. Your language is less than civil...
...it is indicative of those who know they are on the losing side of an argument.

2. I know more than you do. Ms. Parker certainly does.
Find anything in the OP that you can claim is false.

3. Your posts reek of 'Oooo....look what a good boy I am."
Actually...you're a jerk.

4. .... and will remain a jerk.
Just happens to be your destiny.

 

[kwc57]

What help do you provide personally? Insisting that the government tax people with more than you to give it to others in your name doesn't count. What do you personally do to help your fellow man?

I am the president of a non-profit which helps people in actute crises. Which is why I know PoliticalChic is chock full of shit.

Well thank you for your service.........but I wasn't addressing you unless you are a sock of TDM.

 

[paulitician]

What is being 'Poor' in America today? I'm open to listening to others' interpretations of what being poor is. I'll wait for someone to expound on that.

 

[Foxfyre]

Many federal programs for the poor are managed at the local level. And as one who actually works in the trenches helping the poor, I can tell you without equivocation that government programs have far better due diligence than privately run programs. It is one of my great frustrations the private organizations I cross-pollinate with totally SUCK at due diligence. They are easily and regularly abused and they are fully aware they are being abused, and still do nothing about it.

One of my points of pride is the donors to our organization know exactly where every penny they donate goes. And we pay our own overhead out of our own pockets. But we are by far the exception.

So why not just leave the program at the local level to begin with instead of taxing the people, siphoning off a huge percentage of the tax money to feed the ever more bloated, growing, expensive federal government, and then returning a pittance to the people for their own use?

The more layers of government administration there are to fund, the less money actually gets to anybody who needs it.

I have mixed feelings about that.

With federal oversight, you have consistent federal rules. With local oversight, you have rules which vary in their severity and consistency, which results in a great deal of chaos and waste.

Federal rules require far more due diligence, and that means a lot more paperwork. But the end result is that you have a higher level of confidence the intended people are getting the intended assistance.

The problem is not food stamps or heating oil or food. The problem is that "assistance" has expanded to a point of ridiculousness. For example, I live in a state which provides college tuition assistance to alcoholics and drug addicts. That's not a federal program. That's a state program.

But the state government is very good at making sure a meth head gets that money so they can go to college, see? That is what the government intends for that money.

Every penny that is diverted to putting an alcoholic or drug addict through college is a penny not going to a family living out of their car, or a widow with huge medical bills. And that is where my organization ends up having to step in.

Believe me, there are a lot of people falling through the cracks. Private organizations are not making up the difference. PoliticalChic's belief we have no poor is the single most ignorant statement out of an ocean of ignorant statements I have heard on this board.

We just have to ask ourselves exactly what kind of "assistance" do we really need to be providing, and to whom? That is where the conversation needs to be directed. Who thinks we should pay for addicts to earn a degree? Who thinks a widow should not have to worry about medical bills? And so forth.

Somewhere along the way, those decisions were taken out of our hands.

But to deny we need to provide any kind of assistance at all is sheer assholery.

Nobody, and I do mean nobody, has said no assistance at all is what is needed. But compassion is not making oneself feel righteous at the expense of hurting those we are supposed to be helping.

Federal oversight of necessity has to be a one-size-fits all program that is absurd given the wide diversity of culture, lifestyle, expense, and need across our huge country with one of the world's largest populations.

And I have worked with this stuff most of my adult life. There is NOTHING at the local level as f*cked up as most federal rules and regs are. And state and local programs make far more sense.

I once applied for a federal grant to get preschool funding for the low income families we were serving. (Yes, I will avail myself of federal programs too when they are made available to us, even though if the money was left with the people in the first place, there would be less presumed need for federal programs.)

I am a damn good grant writer and wrote grant after grant application, each turned down. Finally I changed one phrase. I changed 'pre-school children of low income familes' to 'pre delinquent children.' The grant sailed right through, no questions asked.

Our federal government is that dumb and that irrational.

But again, when you have the available funds siphoned off to fuel the ever bloated, every needy, ever growing monstrosity of a government, the fewer layers of government necessary to admiinistrate a necessary program, the more efficient and effective the program is going to be and the more money will get to somebody who actually needs it. And at the local level, it is far more likely to be the most practical for the people served.

Being elected to high office does not suggest that those so elected are more noble, more honest, less greedy, less self serving than those who work at the state and local levels.

 

[Pete7469]

What is being 'Poor' in America today? I'm open to listening to others' interpretations of what being poor is. I'll wait for someone to expound on that.

Being poor means having less than a certain amount in annual income, and voting democrook.