The Lazy Poor

[koshergrl]

People are smart, and they aren't going to put themselves out if they don't have to.

Here's the facts of life...life is HARD, you aren't OWED a living, and if your children have issues, it's YOUR job to support them and provide for them. They are, after all, YOUR children.

That isn't to say people shouldn't take advantage of assistance that is offered...but as far as devoting your entire life to pursuing MORE assistance, and pissing and moaning that nobody cares enough for your family and your kids...well, WHO should care more for them than YOU do? And WHY should someone else devote more resources to your family than you are willing to?

 

[Freemason9]

We have enough food. It's not scarcity of food that is the problem.

It's over regulation that means that everything is priced out of range.

Sorry, but the "over regulation" thing is somewhat empty. I'd have to ask you to tell me what part of our food supply chain should be deregulated.

If you were to say, "over subsidized," I'd be in full agreement. Paying farmers to grow easy commodity crops like soybeans and corn devastates our food supply and costs billions (also, it has created another entitlement culture with farmers). Most commodity subsidies, in my opinion, should be eliminated. Farmers should shoulder some risk with their business operations for a change.

I think society is facing an issue whereby full employment may be nearly impossible to come by due to technological advances. The need for human labor has simply decreased, and it will continue to do so. At some point this will need to be recognized; I can imagine that the whole idea of a 40-hour workweek may soon be outdated. We could quickly achieve full employment if we were to go to a 32-hour workweek, but I recognize it isn't that easy--although it is probably unevitable.

 

[paulitician]

I think it's time to explore and redefine what being 'Poor' in America is. Is not having that new Car, Big Screen TV, or iPhone, considered being poor? It seems most just don't know anymore. Clearly, the Entitlements have gotten away from us. The System is out of control. And with Amnesty being considered, how can it all continue being paid for? These are the questions people need to start asking.

 

[Foxfyre]

We have enough food. It's not scarcity of food that is the problem.

It's over regulation that means that everything is priced out of range.

Sorry, but the "over regulation" thing is somewhat empty. I'd have to ask you to tell me what part of our food supply chain should be deregulated.

If you were to say, "over subsidized," I'd be in full agreement. Paying farmers to grow easy commodity crops like soybeans and corn devastates our food supply and costs billions (also, it has created another entitlement culture with farmers). Most commodity subsidies, in my opinion, should be eliminated. Farmers should shoulder some risk with their business operations for a change.

I think society is facing an issue whereby full employment may be nearly impossible to come by due to technological advances. The need for human labor has simply decreased, and it will continue to do so. At some point this will need to be recognized; I can imagine that the whole idea of a 40-hour workweek may soon be outdated. We could quickly achieve full employment if we were to go to a 32-hour workweek, but I recognize it isn't that easy--although it is probably unevitable.

And pulling 'food supply' out of the multi-millions of pages of government regulation into every aspect of our lives is really a red herring.

Let me give you one example that doesn't have any bearing on unemployment other than how government uses regulation to draw money and energy and vitality out of our economy.

My aunt suffers from osteoporosis and was taking a remedial drug that helped but also stressed her liver. So when tests detected enough liver damage that the drug had to be stopped, she was prescribed another drug that cost about what quadruple any other drug of that category cost. There was another much cheaper and more effective drug that could have been prescribed that had fewer side effects, but Medicare regulations would not allow Medicare to pay for it UNLESS she had had her gallbladder removed.

I asked the doctor what the gallbladder had to do with osteoporosis. He replied nothing whatsoever. But Medicare is full of ridiculous rules and regs of that nature. And that is just one of hundreds and hundreds of complicated, bloated, often inefficient and ineffective federal programs.

And you and I pay for it. And every dollar pulled out of the economy via taxes is a dollar not available to the private sector to save, spend, invest, expand businesses, increase salaries and benefits, and hire more people.

The new Obamacare rules and regs have now passed 13,000 pages and that is about a tenth of all that will be in place when that program is in full effect next year.

Get the federal government out of the benefit business altogether, however, and I think we won't have much problem with there being American poor, lazy or otherwise, because everybody who wants to work will be needed in the work force.

 

[High_Gravity]

I think it's time to explore and redefine what being 'Poor' in America is. Is not having that new Car, Big Screen TV, or iPhone, considered being poor? It seems most just don't know anymore. Clearly, the Entitlements have gotten away from us. The System is out of control. And with Amnesty being considered, how can it all continue being paid for? These are the questions people need to start asking.

I don't know about the new car its hard to get the auto loan without employment and good credit, but Air Jordans, the X Box, Flat screen, Ipad etc are requirements for being poor.

 

[paulitician]

I think it's time to explore and redefine what being 'Poor' in America is. Is not having that new Car, Big Screen TV, or iPhone, considered being poor? It seems most just don't know anymore. Clearly, the Entitlements have gotten away from us. The System is out of control. And with Amnesty being considered, how can it all continue being paid for? These are the questions people need to start asking.

I don't know about the new car its hard to get the auto loan without employment and good credit, but Air Jordans, the X Box, Flat screen, Ipad etc are requirements for being poor.

Yeah, it's all out of whack. The System is broken. Most can't even define what being poor in America is. But there will be a breakdown at some point. This cannot be sustained. Nothing will be done until that breakdown occurs. The hard-working Middle Class is tired of being soaked. These Entitlements cannot be supported forever. They're running out of hard-working Citizens to Tax. So our real problems haven't even begun yet. Just wait till the Party ends. Mass Civil Unrest will become the norm.

 

[Freemason9]

We have enough food. It's not scarcity of food that is the problem.

It's over regulation that means that everything is priced out of range.

Sorry, but the "over regulation" thing is somewhat empty. I'd have to ask you to tell me what part of our food supply chain should be deregulated.

If you were to say, "over subsidized," I'd be in full agreement. Paying farmers to grow easy commodity crops like soybeans and corn devastates our food supply and costs billions (also, it has created another entitlement culture with farmers). Most commodity subsidies, in my opinion, should be eliminated. Farmers should shoulder some risk with their business operations for a change.

I think society is facing an issue whereby full employment may be nearly impossible to come by due to technological advances. The need for human labor has simply decreased, and it will continue to do so. At some point this will need to be recognized; I can imagine that the whole idea of a 40-hour workweek may soon be outdated. We could quickly achieve full employment if we were to go to a 32-hour workweek, but I recognize it isn't that easy--although it is probably unevitable.

And pulling 'food supply' out of the multi-millions of pages of government regulation into every aspect of our lives is really a red herring.

Let me give you one example that doesn't have any bearing on unemployment other than how government uses regulation to draw money and energy and vitality out of our economy.

My aunt suffers from osteoporosis and was taking a remedial drug that helped but also stressed her liver. So when tests detected enough liver damage that the drug had to be stopped, she was prescribed another drug that cost about what quadruple any other drug of that category cost. There was another drug that could have been prescribed that was effective and with much fewer side effects, but Medicare regulations would not allow Medicare to pay for it UNLESS she had had her gallbladder removed.

I asked the doctor what the gallbladder had to do with osteoporosis. He replied nothing whatsoever. But Medicare is full of ridiculous rules and regs of that nature. And that is just one of hundreds and hundreds of complicated, bloated, often inefficient and ineffective federal programs.

And you and I pay for it. And every dollar pulled out of the economy via taxes is a dollar not available to the private sector to invest, expand businesses, increase salaries and benefits, and hire more people.

The new Obamacare rules and regs have now passed 13,000 pages and that is about a tenth of all that will be in place when that program is in full effect next year.

Get the federal government out of the benefit business altogether, however, and I think we won't have much problem with there being American poor, lazy or otherwise, because everybody who wants to work will be needed in the work force.

I think we both know, though, that the regulation described in the example you cite has a background. SOME pharmaceutical company, SOMEWHERE, lobbied to have that inserted in the legislation and regulatory framework. And this is where right wing ideology falls off the boat and drives into the ditch, because the "free market" environment also applies to purchasing legislation.

I would even suggest that most regulation is written to benefit certain business interests--it often suppresses competition, drives up prices (and consequently profits), and increases advantage among the lobbying firms.

When I hear someone complain about regulation, I think about regulation that actually is written to protect citizens/consumers. That other stuff--well, it is the product of a capitalist economy that allows legislation to be bought.

 

[Freemason9]

I think it's time to explore and redefine what being 'Poor' in America is. Is not having that new Car, Big Screen TV, or iPhone, considered being poor? It seems most just don't know anymore. Clearly, the Entitlements have gotten away from us. The System is out of control. And with Amnesty being considered, how can it all continue being paid for? These are the questions people need to start asking.

I don't know about the new car its hard to get the auto loan without employment and good credit, but Air Jordans, the X Box, Flat screen, Ipad etc are requirements for being poor.

Add all those things together, though, and it doesn't amount to one month of room and board. That's cheap shit. Living, though, is expensive. I think trying to use consumer goods as a measurement of "wealth" is a specious pastime.

 

[Claudette]

I think it's time to explore and redefine what being 'Poor' in America is. Is not having that new Car, Big Screen TV, or iPhone, considered being poor? It seems most just don't know anymore. Clearly, the Entitlements have gotten away from us. The System is out of control. And with Amnesty being considered, how can it all continue being paid for? These are the questions people need to start asking.

I don't know about the new car its hard to get the auto loan without employment and good credit, but Air Jordans, the X Box, Flat screen, Ipad etc are requirements for being poor.

Yeah, it's all out of whack. The System is broken. Most can't even define what being poor in America is. But there will be a breakdown at some point. This cannot be sustained. Nothing will be done until that breakdown occurs. The hard-working Middle Class is tired of being soaked. These Entitlements cannot be supported forever. They're running out of hard-working Citizens to Tax. So our real problems haven't even begun yet. Just wait till the Party ends. Mass Civil Unrest will become the norm.

Yup. Right now you have 47% or 49% of folks who pay no Fed taxes at all.

One has to wonder who the hell they will tax and at what rate when that figure hits 50 or 55%??

 

[High_Gravity]

I think it's time to explore and redefine what being 'Poor' in America is. Is not having that new Car, Big Screen TV, or iPhone, considered being poor? It seems most just don't know anymore. Clearly, the Entitlements have gotten away from us. The System is out of control. And with Amnesty being considered, how can it all continue being paid for? These are the questions people need to start asking.

I don't know about the new car its hard to get the auto loan without employment and good credit, but Air Jordans, the X Box, Flat screen, Ipad etc are requirements for being poor.

Yeah, it's all out of whack. The System is broken. Most can't even define what being poor in America is. But there will be a breakdown at some point. This cannot be sustained. Nothing will be done until that breakdown occurs. The hard-working Middle Class is tired of being soaked. These Entitlements cannot be supported forever. They're running out of hard-working Citizens to Tax. So our real problems haven't even begun yet. Just wait till the Party ends. Mass Civil Unrest will become the norm.

And than we will know what "poor" is, we will have shanty towns and tin shack villages just like Jamaica and Brazil.

 

[High_Gravity]

I think it's time to explore and redefine what being 'Poor' in America is. Is not having that new Car, Big Screen TV, or iPhone, considered being poor? It seems most just don't know anymore. Clearly, the Entitlements have gotten away from us. The System is out of control. And with Amnesty being considered, how can it all continue being paid for? These are the questions people need to start asking.

I don't know about the new car its hard to get the auto loan without employment and good credit, but Air Jordans, the X Box, Flat screen, Ipad etc are requirements for being poor.

Add all those things together, though, and it doesn't amount to one month of room and board. That's cheap shit. Living, though, is expensive. I think trying to use consumer goods as a measurement of "wealth" is a specious pastime.

Well you won't see poor folks in Albania, El Salvador or Zimbabwe walking around with the new IPAD or the hottest Jordans.

 

[ScienceRocks]

who's fault is it that they're that poor?

 

[Freemason9]

I don't know about the new car its hard to get the auto loan without employment and good credit, but Air Jordans, the X Box, Flat screen, Ipad etc are requirements for being poor.

Add all those things together, though, and it doesn't amount to one month of room and board. That's cheap shit. Living, though, is expensive. I think trying to use consumer goods as a measurement of "wealth" is a specious pastime.

Well you won't see poor folks in Albania, El Salvador or Zimbabwe walking around with the new IPAD or the hottest Jordans.

Actually, you do.

 

[Foxfyre]

Sorry, but the "over regulation" thing is somewhat empty. I'd have to ask you to tell me what part of our food supply chain should be deregulated.

If you were to say, "over subsidized," I'd be in full agreement. Paying farmers to grow easy commodity crops like soybeans and corn devastates our food supply and costs billions (also, it has created another entitlement culture with farmers). Most commodity subsidies, in my opinion, should be eliminated. Farmers should shoulder some risk with their business operations for a change.

I think society is facing an issue whereby full employment may be nearly impossible to come by due to technological advances. The need for human labor has simply decreased, and it will continue to do so. At some point this will need to be recognized; I can imagine that the whole idea of a 40-hour workweek may soon be outdated. We could quickly achieve full employment if we were to go to a 32-hour workweek, but I recognize it isn't that easy--although it is probably unevitable.

And pulling 'food supply' out of the multi-millions of pages of government regulation into every aspect of our lives is really a red herring.

Let me give you one example that doesn't have any bearing on unemployment other than how government uses regulation to draw money and energy and vitality out of our economy.

My aunt suffers from osteoporosis and was taking a remedial drug that helped but also stressed her liver. So when tests detected enough liver damage that the drug had to be stopped, she was prescribed another drug that cost about what quadruple any other drug of that category cost. There was another drug that could have been prescribed that was effective and with much fewer side effects, but Medicare regulations would not allow Medicare to pay for it UNLESS she had had her gallbladder removed.

I asked the doctor what the gallbladder had to do with osteoporosis. He replied nothing whatsoever. But Medicare is full of ridiculous rules and regs of that nature. And that is just one of hundreds and hundreds of complicated, bloated, often inefficient and ineffective federal programs.

And you and I pay for it. And every dollar pulled out of the economy via taxes is a dollar not available to the private sector to invest, expand businesses, increase salaries and benefits, and hire more people.

The new Obamacare rules and regs have now passed 13,000 pages and that is about a tenth of all that will be in place when that program is in full effect next year.

Get the federal government out of the benefit business altogether, however, and I think we won't have much problem with there being American poor, lazy or otherwise, because everybody who wants to work will be needed in the work force.

I think we both know, though, that the regulation described in the example you cite has a background. SOME pharmaceutical company, SOMEWHERE, lobbied to have that inserted in the legislation and regulatory framework. And this is where right wing ideology falls off the boat and drives into the ditch, because the "free market" environment also applies to purchasing legislation.

I would even suggest that most regulation is written to benefit certain business interests--it often suppresses competition, drives up prices (and consequently profits), and increases advantage among the lobbying firms.

When I hear someone complain about regulation, I think about regulation that actually is written to protect citizens/consumers. That other stuff--well, it is the product of a capitalist economy that allows legislation to be bought.

Very little regulation that is written protects citizen/consumers, but nobody with any education or a brain objects to regulation that is NECESSARY to secure our rights and prevent us from doing economic or physical violence to each other over state lines or across borders. Certainly an FDA requiring minimal safety standards for foodstuffs that of necessity must move across borders or state lines makes sense so that every state or every community or every business does not have to do that individually.

But if we got the federal government out of the benefits provision business altogether, those pharmaceutical companies, etc would not have just one entity to coerce, bribe, threaten, lobby or whatever. And it would be much more difficult for them to impose universally irresponsible rules and regs on us.

And when we look to our local and state governments to have our best interests at heart, we are much more likely to demand good government from them and they are much more likely to be responsive to demands for good government. A few 'welfare states' or other powerful lobbies would not have the ability to impose stupid, costly, or irresonsible policy, rules, reg, etc. on everybody else.

And there would be no need to pull trillions every year out of the American economy to fuel a bloated, self serving federal government that absorbs the lions share of the tax dollars just to fuel itself.

And THAT would free up mega billions, if not trillions, of private sector money to improve lives everywhere. And we would have far fewer people being among the permanent poor.

 

[Freemason9]

who's fault is it that they're that poor?

Although this does not apply to everyone in all cases (nothing does), the economic system only operates efficiently on the premise of "lords and serfs;" the profit imperative necessarily requires exploitation of a workforce to maximize concentrated wealth.

It's driven by a quest for power, which infers the desire to control others.

IOW, it's complicated.

 

[Foxfyre]

who's fault is it that they're that poor?

Although this does not apply to everyone in all cases (nothing does), the economic system only operates efficiently on the premise of "lords and serfs;" the profit imperative necessarily requires exploitation of a workforce to maximize concentrated wealth.

It's driven by a quest for power, which infers the desire to control others.

IOW, it's complicated.

Unless you have actually been educated in the ideas and principles and value system of our nation's founders. When you have, you know that the system they set up for us REMOVED all authoritarian power including a pope or archbishop or monarch or fuedal lord or any other totalitarian power from having any ability to have power over the people without their express consent. The intention was for the federal government to secure our rights and provide a structure by which the various states could function as one strong nation. And then the people would be left alone to govern themselves and form whatever sort of societies they wished to have.

If we could return to that system, permanent poverty would again be a conscious choice rather than the result of government policy.

 

[High_Gravity]

Add all those things together, though, and it doesn't amount to one month of room and board. That's cheap shit. Living, though, is expensive. I think trying to use consumer goods as a measurement of "wealth" is a specious pastime.

Well you won't see poor folks in Albania, El Salvador or Zimbabwe walking around with the new IPAD or the hottest Jordans.

Actually, you do.

Really?

 

[High_Gravity]

who's fault is it that they're that poor?

That answer differs for every poor person.

 

[Againsheila]

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.

... such as free cell phones, free lap tops, free computers, free Internet.


Obama Gives Poor Free Internet After U.N. Says It’s A Basic Human Right.
http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2...ternet-after-u-n-says-it-s-basic-human-right/

Actually, there's nothing in there about it being free, he wants faster internet provided in areas that only have dial up now. I think there are some things the government needs to provide. My cousin in Wisconsin can't get anything but dial up internet where she lives and she'd be perfectly willing to pay for high speed internet, it's just not available to her. Today, thanks to internet, schools can talk to people in other parts of the world, real time. It's a shame that there are schools that don't have that access.

 

[Freemason9]

who's fault is it that they're that poor?

Although this does not apply to everyone in all cases (nothing does), the economic system only operates efficiently on the premise of "lords and serfs;" the profit imperative necessarily requires exploitation of a workforce to maximize concentrated wealth.

It's driven by a quest for power, which infers the desire to control others.

IOW, it's complicated.

Unless you have actually been educated in the ideas and principles and value system of our nation's founders. When you have, you know that the system they set up for us REMOVED all authoritarian power including a pope or archbishop or monarch or fuedal lord or any other totalitarian power from having any ability to have power over the people without their express consent. The intention was for the federal government to secure our rights and provide a structure by which the various states could function as one strong nation. And then the people would be left alone to govern themselves and form whatever sort of societies they wished to have.

If we could return to that system, permanent poverty would again be a conscious choice rather than the result of government policy.

Although the "founders" may have had noble intentions, they had no way of predicting how society and technology would change things. We could no more "return to that system" than we could redesign our transportation infrastructure based upon horses and buggies. Why would we want to?

I think the fundamental problem is that it is nearly impossible to fairly govern 300+ million people with a single centralized democracy. Why in the world should a bunch of people in Oklahoma prevent New Yorkers from having a national health care system, for example? The system of government the founders envisioned may have been fine for 18th century America, but we've grown a bit since then . . . hell, they didn't even use oil back then.