Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?

[Arianrhod]

Here we go again...

Do you have a point or are you merely going to bleat?

That sound you hear is the echo of the many, many, many others here who have made that same tired "some people don't want to work" speech before you. You at least jazzed it up with the "a friend of mine" variation, but it's still tone-deaf.

And yet it is factual...

Then present some factual data, not "a friend of mine."

An example of factual data:

You mean like this silly boy?


Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes
Top earners were the main target of recent tax increases under President Obama, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 68 percent of all federal income taxes in 2011 (the latest year available), though they earned 45 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent of income taxes, but earned 12 percent of income.

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

On declared income. Have you ever heard of the Cayman Islands?

Also, how you doing with all the info Flopper gave you?

 

[westwall]

Do you have a point or are you merely going to bleat?

That sound you hear is the echo of the many, many, many others here who have made that same tired "some people don't want to work" speech before you. You at least jazzed it up with the "a friend of mine" variation, but it's still tone-deaf.

And yet it is factual...

Then present some factual data, not "a friend of mine."

An example of factual data:

You mean like this silly boy?


Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes
Top earners were the main target of recent tax increases under President Obama, but the federal income tax system is already highly progressive. The top 10 percent of income earners paid 68 percent of all federal income taxes in 2011 (the latest year available), though they earned 45 percent of all income. The bottom 50 percent paid 3 percent of income taxes, but earned 12 percent of income.

Top 10 Percent of Earners Paid 68 Percent of Federal Income Taxes

On declared income. Have you ever heard of the Cayman Islands?

Also, how you doing with all the info Flopper gave you?

Yes, declared income. The bottom 50 percent pay 3%. Of THEIR declared income. Go away. You're nothing but a one trick pony.

 

[Arianrhod]

Yes, declared income. The bottom 50 percent pay 3%. Of THEIR declared income.

So either you believe poor people have bank accounts in the Caymans or you've never heard of offshore accounts. Not surprising.

 

[westwall]

Yes, declared income. The bottom 50 percent pay 3%. Of THEIR declared income.

So either you believe poor people have bank accounts in the Caymans or you've never heard of offshore accounts. Not surprising.

Nope, I know they don't. My offshore account is in the Isle of Man. How about yours? I am curious though. If you could have your ultimate wish as regards the economy, what would it be?

 

[Conservative65]

No people made choices that caused them to be in poverty and now want to blame someone else for the results or expect someone else to pay for it. Are you saying everyone that quit high school went to a bad school?

I don't need to examine it more closely. The parent made the choice to commit the crime that sent them to prison and you expect the rest of us to pay for their choice. In doing so, it takes away what I'VE earned that goes to my kids. Why should mine do with less because I am expected to pay more taxes because of what some other parent did? What you're saying is that when people make bad choices the rest of us should be willing and overjoyed to pay for it.

You're going to pay in one way or the other. Poverty is the mother of crime, disease, and insurrection. Social services that help people get out of poverty are a good investment.

Poverty and bad laws. We have spent well over 5 trillion dollars on the "war on poverty". How has that worked out for us? What has been the net effect on the amount of people still in poverty since the war was started?

What's the bible verse, You will always have the poor with you, or something like that. The War on Poverty actually did reduce poverty in US from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent today according to a study done in 2013 at Columbia University.



Social problems are the most difficult problems we face. The general public might look at the War on poverty as a failure because after spending 5 trillion dollars we still have 16% of the people below the poverty line. However, social scientist see it as successful by comparison to other programs.

Although poverty has been shown to be a major factor in most of the nations social problems, it is certainly not the only factor. Even if we could eliminate all poverty, there would certainly be crime, racism, alcohol and drug addition, dysfunctional behavior, etc. but there would be less of it.

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf

We've spent $22 trillion and the poverty level today is the same as it was just before the war on poverty began.

The poverty rate couldn't have been 26% in 1967 since the highest poverty rate on record was just over 22% in 1959.

www.cnbc.com/id/48281252/

Here's a chart from the Census Bureau showing poverty by the percentages and numbers. I'm not seeing that 26% you claim

View attachment 53019 View attachment 53019

See page page 5 of the report for an explanation of the OPM/SPM poverty rates.
https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf

I don't read propaganda.

 

[Conservative65]

No people made choices that caused them to be in poverty and now want to blame someone else for the results or expect someone else to pay for it. Are you saying everyone that quit high school went to a bad school?

I don't need to examine it more closely. The parent made the choice to commit the crime that sent them to prison and you expect the rest of us to pay for their choice. In doing so, it takes away what I'VE earned that goes to my kids. Why should mine do with less because I am expected to pay more taxes because of what some other parent did? What you're saying is that when people make bad choices the rest of us should be willing and overjoyed to pay for it.

You're going to pay in one way or the other. Poverty is the mother of crime, disease, and insurrection. Social services that help people get out of poverty are a good investment.

Poverty and bad laws. We have spent well over 5 trillion dollars on the "war on poverty". How has that worked out for us? What has been the net effect on the amount of people still in poverty since the war was started?

What's the bible verse, You will always have the poor with you, or something like that. The War on Poverty actually did reduce poverty in US from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent today according to a study done in 2013 at Columbia University.

Social problems are the most difficult problems we face. The general public might look at the War on poverty as a failure because after spending 5 trillion dollars we still have 16% of the people below the poverty line. However, social scientist see it as successful by comparison to other programs.

Although poverty has been shown to be a major factor in most of the nations social problems, it is certainly not the only factor. Even if we could eliminate all poverty, there would certainly be crime, racism, alcohol and drug addition, dysfunctional behavior, etc. but there would be less of it.

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf

I'm not religious so I have never read the Bible so can't help you there. However, I do know that merely giving people money without teaching them HOW to earn money only serves to make them dependent on you who have given them the money. That is a lesson that has been learned repeatedly over the millennia. How do you deal with people who CHOOSE to remain in poverty? Must the rest of society be forced to care for them?

I actually DO agree with some aspect of that to be honest. If someone wants to check out of society I am quite happy to give them a two room apartment, feed them, give them a nice TV and a game system and let them play away till they die. The trade off is they don't get to vote, or have children. They become wards of the State and as such they have no right to procreate.

Now, should they decide that they no longer wish to live that way and decide to become productive members of society then that door is always open for them too. Nothing is permanent.

How does that work for you?

I don't see poverty as a choice. Many of those that do are basing their reasoning off of singular circumstances. When you look at statistics, it is clear that social mobility in the United States is a very unrealistic concept. It is difficult or even impossible for people to move between classes today. The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. People are definitely born into conditions out of their own control that do not foster economic success, and that is reality for millions of American's in the United States. That is not a choice. Having come from a relatively poor family, I can not see how anyone would choose to be poor.

Most of the government programs do have features that encourage employment. For example in most states to receive food stamps, you must be actively looking for work or in some job training program. Federal assistance for childcare which are direct subsidies or tax credits are tied to employment. TANF for two parent family requires that one of the parent be working or actively seeking work. Receipt of cash is limited to 48 months.

There are programs that can't reasonably be tied to employment such as Medicaid. Some housing programs pay a part of the rent so the family has to have other income. Others pay all the housing costs.

91% of those benefiting from entitlement programs are either elderly, a member of working family, or seriously disabled which means the well published welfare queen is an anomaly and certainly not representative of people on public assistance.

Many are in poverty due to the choices they made in life. In the end, whether they chose to be in poverty or made choices that produced that result, there is no difference. It's a result of a choice.
Too many say poor people didn't have the same chances as others. That's incorrect. I went to school with rich and not so rich. Everyone of us has the same books, teachers, lessons, desks, etc. How is that not the same opportunity?

Most of that oversight on those programs is a joke.

 

[Conservative65]

I'm happy to abide by the Constitution.

Happy to lend your support to killing children in other sovereign nations, but not to feeding children in your own. Jesus might not approve, but Yahweh would give you a fist-bump.

You aren't.

My interpretation differs from yours.

By the way, many of the Democrat leaders who now say Bush lied said exactly the same thing as Bush did.

I don't recall disputing that.

Mine isn't an interpretation. It goes based on what's WRITTEN not how I want it to read.

Sucks for you that we live under a tricameral system and not a dictatorship, huh?

Sucks that you have to rely on what you want something to say while ignoring what something actually says.

I can show you where it SAYS military and funding of it. Can you show me the word food stamps and healthcare in that same document?

I'm aware of the wording of the Constitution.

Which, of course, has never been amended, right?

And which, courtesy of a tricameral system, is frequently interpreted.

So what's your objection - to the amendments (except the Sacred Second, of course) or to the existence of SCOTUS (except when its rulings match your desires)?

It's been amended but there are still no words such as food stamps, WIC, healthcare, etc.

My objection is that so many of your kind, meaning bleeding hearts, constantly see things in the Constitution that simply aren't there and complain about those that are. Just yesterday, I was discussing with one of you bleeding hearts this very concept. That person said that the government has passed laws that say X% goes to such programs and I should simply pay those taxes and stop complaining. I asked that person if they thought too much was spent on the military. Of course, the answer was yes and a very resounding yes at that. My reply was that the government has passed laws that say X% goes to funding the military and he should stop complaining. When I brought up that at least funding for the military was a specifically delegated power to Congress and what he supported had no such delegation, he reverted to the typical emotional ranting of a bleeding heart using the go to phrases about living in a society and helping the unfortunate. When I told him that he was more than welcome to do with his own money what he thought should be done, I could have sworn I was talking to you. Like most of you, you say something should be done then expect everyone to say yes and if they don't, you go about having it forced from us.

Had a similar conversation with another one of you last night. I offered him the challenge of doing the same. His response, which I haven't heard in a while, fell under the "IF I could I would but I don't have the money".

 

[Arianrhod]

Yes, declared income. The bottom 50 percent pay 3%. Of THEIR declared income.

So either you believe poor people have bank accounts in the Caymans or you've never heard of offshore accounts. Not surprising.

Nope, I know they don't. My offshore account is in the Isle of Man. How about yours? I am curious though. If you could have your ultimate wish as regards the economy, what would it be?

I saw this just as I was logging out last night, but I've been thinking about it ever since. I'm not an economist, so I don't know the names of the various disciplines or who espouses what, so I can't approach it from that angle, just from practicality. As simply as possible, I'd want an economy that works for people, not the other way around.

Which economists espoused maintaining infrastructure? The U.S. ranks second in natural resources globally. Why are our roads and dams and bridges crumbling? People pay state and sales taxes. States get federal funding. Where does that money go? Into state legislators' pockets? Into their special pork barrel projects? You tell me.

It's my understanding that there are something like eight million vacant houses nationwide, and about 3.5 million homeless. That looks like a simple equation, until the emotionalism sets in. "Oh, you want to give homeless people free stuff? **** that!" Conversation ends.

I understand it costs about $22,000 a year to keep someone in one of our increasingly privately-run prisons, regardless of whether he's in there for murdering his wife or for a nonviolent crime. That makes more sense to some people than tuition-free state universities.

I was reading something this morning about a city program in Albuquerque that hires homeless people to clean up their own neighborhood. They work for 5.5 hours at $9 an hour, and when they're done they're driven to a health center for a meal and, if they want it, a medical checkup (yeah, more "free stuff" and "he'll only use that money to buy booze and drugs"). I don't know about you, but I like to see clean streets and fewer people sleeping on the sidewalks.

Give me a practical economy. For some reason we can't seem to do that in this country. There are amazing things happening in so-called "Third World" countries where I can show you that a lot can be accomplished with a little, but in this country we get stuck. Figure that out and we can accomplish other things.

 

[Flopper]

You're going to pay in one way or the other. Poverty is the mother of crime, disease, and insurrection. Social services that help people get out of poverty are a good investment.

Poverty and bad laws. We have spent well over 5 trillion dollars on the "war on poverty". How has that worked out for us? What has been the net effect on the amount of people still in poverty since the war was started?

What's the bible verse, You will always have the poor with you, or something like that. The War on Poverty actually did reduce poverty in US from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent today according to a study done in 2013 at Columbia University.

Social problems are the most difficult problems we face. The general public might look at the War on poverty as a failure because after spending 5 trillion dollars we still have 16% of the people below the poverty line. However, social scientist see it as successful by comparison to other programs.

Although poverty has been shown to be a major factor in most of the nations social problems, it is certainly not the only factor. Even if we could eliminate all poverty, there would certainly be crime, racism, alcohol and drug addition, dysfunctional behavior, etc. but there would be less of it.

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf

I'm not religious so I have never read the Bible so can't help you there. However, I do know that merely giving people money without teaching them HOW to earn money only serves to make them dependent on you who have given them the money. That is a lesson that has been learned repeatedly over the millennia. How do you deal with people who CHOOSE to remain in poverty? Must the rest of society be forced to care for them?

I actually DO agree with some aspect of that to be honest. If someone wants to check out of society I am quite happy to give them a two room apartment, feed them, give them a nice TV and a game system and let them play away till they die. The trade off is they don't get to vote, or have children. They become wards of the State and as such they have no right to procreate.

Now, should they decide that they no longer wish to live that way and decide to become productive members of society then that door is always open for them too. Nothing is permanent.

How does that work for you?

I don't see poverty as a choice. Many of those that do are basing their reasoning off of singular circumstances. When you look at statistics, it is clear that social mobility in the United States is a very unrealistic concept. It is difficult or even impossible for people to move between classes today. The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. People are definitely born into conditions out of their own control that do not foster economic success, and that is reality for millions of American's in the United States. That is not a choice. Having come from a relatively poor family, I can not see how anyone would choose to be poor.

Most of the government programs do have features that encourage employment. For example in most states to receive food stamps, you must be actively looking for work or in some job training program. Federal assistance for childcare which are direct subsidies or tax credits are tied to employment. TANF for two parent family requires that one of the parent be working or actively seeking work. Receipt of cash is limited to 48 months.

There are programs that can't reasonably be tied to employment such as Medicaid. Some housing programs pay a part of the rent so the family has to have other income. Others pay all the housing costs.

91% of those benefiting from entitlement programs are either elderly, a member of working family, or seriously disabled which means the well published welfare queen is an anomaly and certainly not representative of people on public assistance.

Many are in poverty due to the choices they made in life. In the end, whether they chose to be in poverty or made choices that produced that result, there is no difference. It's a result of a choice.
Too many say poor people didn't have the same chances as others. That's incorrect. I went to school with rich and not so rich. Everyone of us has the same books, teachers, lessons, desks, etc. How is that not the same opportunity?

Most of that oversight on those programs is a joke.

Whether they chose poverty or not, the result is the same. Society still has to contend with the resulting increased crime, broken families, family abuse, addiction, physical and mental disease.

Good schooling will make little difference if the parents are teaching the child by word and deed that they can't succeed which is common among the very poor. If the child does not develop self esteem in their early years, the chance of any real success in school or in life is not good. As adults they are very likely to spend their life moving between low paid jobs separated by months of unemployment and government support.

Today a large segment of entitlement money goes not to the chronically unemployed but the working poor. 60% of those on food stamps are either working or were recently employed. Over 40% of the families receiving TANF, have at least one adult working. Over half of the non-elderly in HUD housing are working families. The problem is not the people are not working. The problem is jobs don't pay enough money to support the family.

In most states, a family of two parents, one working and one caring for the 3 kids with a family income of $30,000 a year is likely to be receiving a couple hundred dollars in food stamps, Medicaid, free or reduced lunches for the kids. If we reduce federal spending on these programs, this family would still survive but would have a harder time doing so.

 

[westwall]

Yes, declared income. The bottom 50 percent pay 3%. Of THEIR declared income.

So either you believe poor people have bank accounts in the Caymans or you've never heard of offshore accounts. Not surprising.

Nope, I know they don't. My offshore account is in the Isle of Man. How about yours? I am curious though. If you could have your ultimate wish as regards the economy, what would it be?

I saw this just as I was logging out last night, but I've been thinking about it ever since. I'm not an economist, so I don't know the names of the various disciplines or who espouses what, so I can't approach it from that angle, just from practicality. As simply as possible, I'd want an economy that works for people, not the other way around.

Which economists espoused maintaining infrastructure? The U.S. ranks second in natural resources globally. Why are our roads and dams and bridges crumbling? People pay state and sales taxes. States get federal funding. Where does that money go? Into state legislators' pockets? Into their special pork barrel projects? You tell me.

It's my understanding that there are something like eight million vacant houses nationwide, and about 3.5 million homeless. That looks like a simple equation, until the emotionalism sets in. "Oh, you want to give homeless people free stuff? **** that!" Conversation ends.

I understand it costs about $22,000 a year to keep someone in one of our increasingly privately-run prisons, regardless of whether he's in there for murdering his wife or for a nonviolent crime. That makes more sense to some people than tuition-free state universities.

I was reading something this morning about a city program in Albuquerque that hires homeless people to clean up their own neighborhood. They work for 5.5 hours at $9 an hour, and when they're done they're driven to a health center for a meal and, if they want it, a medical checkup (yeah, more "free stuff" and "he'll only use that money to buy booze and drugs"). I don't know about you, but I like to see clean streets and fewer people sleeping on the sidewalks.

Give me a practical economy. For some reason we can't seem to do that in this country. There are amazing things happening in so-called "Third World" countries where I can show you that a lot can be accomplished with a little, but in this country we get stuck. Figure that out and we can accomplish other things.

Albuquerque's idea sounds like a good one. Please note, I am very liberal. I WANT people to be able to take care of themselves. What I don't want is for people to be dependent on others. The way the current welfare system works benefits the welfare workers but not the recipients. That's the nature of the beast.

If you give something to people they eventually expect it. Then they demand it, but worse of all they don't value it. Nor do they appreciate the sacrifice that is made by other families so that they can get what they want. It is a fact that welfare families are paid very well to stay on welfare, thus they have no incentive to get off of it.

College isn't for everyone. My dad could care less about college, and ultimately there is no such thing as free education, somewhere along the line somebody has to pay for it. I would like to see those who need help, and will actually succeed at college to be able to go there. I don't know how that can be worked out, but it should be.

What I find astonishing is the low level of education that is now considered acceptable in the high schools today. My wife was talking with an adjunct faculty at Western Nevada College who is trying to get a intro to science class added to the curriculum of the college because a student can graduate with honors from a high school and have been required to have only a single biology class to do so. They have no clue of chemistry, or physics. I find that astonishing, but given how little scientific understanding there is on this Forum I am frankly not surprised.

I think the best possible thing to reduce crime in general would be to decriminalize drugs and their use. 80% of all violent crime would go away if that were done. If a person wants to get stoned in the privacy of their own home that is their right. The laws we have against them are stupid and immoral.

I can go on and on but the gist of the matter is nothing is free, welfare should not be a lifetime goal, and no matter how hard you try you will never end poverty. It is simply impossible. The goal is to give every child an opportunity to live a better life than their parents lived. After that the choices they make are theirs and they have to live with them.

 

[Conservative65]

Poverty and bad laws. We have spent well over 5 trillion dollars on the "war on poverty". How has that worked out for us? What has been the net effect on the amount of people still in poverty since the war was started?

What's the bible verse, You will always have the poor with you, or something like that. The War on Poverty actually did reduce poverty in US from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent today according to a study done in 2013 at Columbia University.

Social problems are the most difficult problems we face. The general public might look at the War on poverty as a failure because after spending 5 trillion dollars we still have 16% of the people below the poverty line. However, social scientist see it as successful by comparison to other programs.

Although poverty has been shown to be a major factor in most of the nations social problems, it is certainly not the only factor. Even if we could eliminate all poverty, there would certainly be crime, racism, alcohol and drug addition, dysfunctional behavior, etc. but there would be less of it.

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf

I'm not religious so I have never read the Bible so can't help you there. However, I do know that merely giving people money without teaching them HOW to earn money only serves to make them dependent on you who have given them the money. That is a lesson that has been learned repeatedly over the millennia. How do you deal with people who CHOOSE to remain in poverty? Must the rest of society be forced to care for them?

I actually DO agree with some aspect of that to be honest. If someone wants to check out of society I am quite happy to give them a two room apartment, feed them, give them a nice TV and a game system and let them play away till they die. The trade off is they don't get to vote, or have children. They become wards of the State and as such they have no right to procreate.

Now, should they decide that they no longer wish to live that way and decide to become productive members of society then that door is always open for them too. Nothing is permanent.

How does that work for you?

I don't see poverty as a choice. Many of those that do are basing their reasoning off of singular circumstances. When you look at statistics, it is clear that social mobility in the United States is a very unrealistic concept. It is difficult or even impossible for people to move between classes today. The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. People are definitely born into conditions out of their own control that do not foster economic success, and that is reality for millions of American's in the United States. That is not a choice. Having come from a relatively poor family, I can not see how anyone would choose to be poor.

Most of the government programs do have features that encourage employment. For example in most states to receive food stamps, you must be actively looking for work or in some job training program. Federal assistance for childcare which are direct subsidies or tax credits are tied to employment. TANF for two parent family requires that one of the parent be working or actively seeking work. Receipt of cash is limited to 48 months.

There are programs that can't reasonably be tied to employment such as Medicaid. Some housing programs pay a part of the rent so the family has to have other income. Others pay all the housing costs.

91% of those benefiting from entitlement programs are either elderly, a member of working family, or seriously disabled which means the well published welfare queen is an anomaly and certainly not representative of people on public assistance.

Many are in poverty due to the choices they made in life. In the end, whether they chose to be in poverty or made choices that produced that result, there is no difference. It's a result of a choice.
Too many say poor people didn't have the same chances as others. That's incorrect. I went to school with rich and not so rich. Everyone of us has the same books, teachers, lessons, desks, etc. How is that not the same opportunity?

Most of that oversight on those programs is a joke.

Whether they chose poverty or not, the result is the same. Society still has to contend with the resulting increased crime, broken families, family abuse, addiction, physical and mental disease.

Good schooling will make little difference if the parents are teaching the child by word and deed that they can't succeed which is common among the very poor. If the child does not develop self esteem in their early years, the chance of any real success in school or in life is not good. As adults they are very likely to spend their life moving between low paid jobs separated by months of unemployment and government support.

Today a large segment of entitlement money goes not to the chronically unemployed but the working poor. 60% of those on food stamps are either working or were recently employed. Over 40% of the families receiving TANF, have at least one adult working. Over half of the non-elderly in HUD housing are working families. The problem is not the people are not working. The problem is jobs don't pay enough money to support the family.

In most states, a family of two parents, one working and one caring for the 3 kids with a family income of $30,000 a year is likely to be receiving a couple hundred dollars in food stamps, Medicaid, free or reduced lunches for the kids. If we reduce federal spending on these programs, this family would still survive but would have a harder time doing so.

The result is the same. It's not one person's place to financially offset the results whether the choice was poverty or poverty was the result of bad choices.

The problem isn't that jobs aren't paying enough, the problem is those with such low skills they warrant low wages think someone should pay them more than those wages are worth. If someone offers what's worth $8/hour on the open market in skill and they get $8/hour, the problem is with the one offering not the one paying. Are you saying an employer should pay someone more than what they offer is worth?

The problem with that family of 5 getting those handouts is they don't pay the taxes that funds those handouts, all the while, complaining that they aren't being HANDED enough. In fact, you could almost double the family income and they still wouldn't pay income taxes. To be exact, the family income could be $58,249 based solely on the makeup of the family, and they wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

 

[Arianrhod]

Yes, declared income. The bottom 50 percent pay 3%. Of THEIR declared income.

So either you believe poor people have bank accounts in the Caymans or you've never heard of offshore accounts. Not surprising.

Nope, I know they don't. My offshore account is in the Isle of Man. How about yours? I am curious though. If you could have your ultimate wish as regards the economy, what would it be?

I saw this just as I was logging out last night, but I've been thinking about it ever since. I'm not an economist, so I don't know the names of the various disciplines or who espouses what, so I can't approach it from that angle, just from practicality. As simply as possible, I'd want an economy that works for people, not the other way around.

Which economists espoused maintaining infrastructure? The U.S. ranks second in natural resources globally. Why are our roads and dams and bridges crumbling? People pay state and sales taxes. States get federal funding. Where does that money go? Into state legislators' pockets? Into their special pork barrel projects? You tell me.

It's my understanding that there are something like eight million vacant houses nationwide, and about 3.5 million homeless. That looks like a simple equation, until the emotionalism sets in. "Oh, you want to give homeless people free stuff? **** that!" Conversation ends.

I understand it costs about $22,000 a year to keep someone in one of our increasingly privately-run prisons, regardless of whether he's in there for murdering his wife or for a nonviolent crime. That makes more sense to some people than tuition-free state universities.

I was reading something this morning about a city program in Albuquerque that hires homeless people to clean up their own neighborhood. They work for 5.5 hours at $9 an hour, and when they're done they're driven to a health center for a meal and, if they want it, a medical checkup (yeah, more "free stuff" and "he'll only use that money to buy booze and drugs"). I don't know about you, but I like to see clean streets and fewer people sleeping on the sidewalks.

Give me a practical economy. For some reason we can't seem to do that in this country. There are amazing things happening in so-called "Third World" countries where I can show you that a lot can be accomplished with a little, but in this country we get stuck. Figure that out and we can accomplish other things.

Albuquerque's idea sounds like a good one. Please note, I am very liberal. I WANT people to be able to take care of themselves. What I don't want is for people to be dependent on others. The way the current welfare system works benefits the welfare workers but not the recipients. That's the nature of the beast.

If you give something to people they eventually expect it. Then they demand it, but worse of all they don't value it. Nor do they appreciate the sacrifice that is made by other families so that they can get what they want. It is a fact that welfare families are paid very well to stay on welfare, thus they have no incentive to get off of it.

College isn't for everyone. My dad could care less about college, and ultimately there is no such thing as free education, somewhere along the line somebody has to pay for it. I would like to see those who need help, and will actually succeed at college to be able to go there. I don't know how that can be worked out, but it should be.

What I find astonishing is the low level of education that is now considered acceptable in the high schools today. My wife was talking with an adjunct faculty at Western Nevada College who is trying to get a intro to science class added to the curriculum of the college because a student can graduate with honors from a high school and have been required to have only a single biology class to do so. They have no clue of chemistry, or physics. I find that astonishing, but given how little scientific understanding there is on this Forum I am frankly not surprised.

I think the best possible thing to reduce crime in general would be to decriminalize drugs and their use. 80% of all violent crime would go away if that were done. If a person wants to get stoned in the privacy of their own home that is their right. The laws we have against them are stupid and immoral.

I can go on and on but the gist of the matter is nothing is free, welfare should not be a lifetime goal, and no matter how hard you try you will never end poverty. It is simply impossible. The goal is to give every child an opportunity to live a better life than their parents lived. After that the choices they make are theirs and they have to live with them.

Couldn't have said it better - thank you!

 

[Flopper]

What's the bible verse, You will always have the poor with you, or something like that. The War on Poverty actually did reduce poverty in US from 26 percent in 1967 to 16 percent today according to a study done in 2013 at Columbia University.

Social problems are the most difficult problems we face. The general public might look at the War on poverty as a failure because after spending 5 trillion dollars we still have 16% of the people below the poverty line. However, social scientist see it as successful by comparison to other programs.

Although poverty has been shown to be a major factor in most of the nations social problems, it is certainly not the only factor. Even if we could eliminate all poverty, there would certainly be crime, racism, alcohol and drug addition, dysfunctional behavior, etc. but there would be less of it.

https://courseworks.columbia.edu/access/content/group/c5a1ef92-c03c-4d88-0018-ea43dd3cc5db/Working Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf

I'm not religious so I have never read the Bible so can't help you there. However, I do know that merely giving people money without teaching them HOW to earn money only serves to make them dependent on you who have given them the money. That is a lesson that has been learned repeatedly over the millennia. How do you deal with people who CHOOSE to remain in poverty? Must the rest of society be forced to care for them?

I actually DO agree with some aspect of that to be honest. If someone wants to check out of society I am quite happy to give them a two room apartment, feed them, give them a nice TV and a game system and let them play away till they die. The trade off is they don't get to vote, or have children. They become wards of the State and as such they have no right to procreate.

Now, should they decide that they no longer wish to live that way and decide to become productive members of society then that door is always open for them too. Nothing is permanent.

How does that work for you?

I don't see poverty as a choice. Many of those that do are basing their reasoning off of singular circumstances. When you look at statistics, it is clear that social mobility in the United States is a very unrealistic concept. It is difficult or even impossible for people to move between classes today. The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. People are definitely born into conditions out of their own control that do not foster economic success, and that is reality for millions of American's in the United States. That is not a choice. Having come from a relatively poor family, I can not see how anyone would choose to be poor.

Most of the government programs do have features that encourage employment. For example in most states to receive food stamps, you must be actively looking for work or in some job training program. Federal assistance for childcare which are direct subsidies or tax credits are tied to employment. TANF for two parent family requires that one of the parent be working or actively seeking work. Receipt of cash is limited to 48 months.

There are programs that can't reasonably be tied to employment such as Medicaid. Some housing programs pay a part of the rent so the family has to have other income. Others pay all the housing costs.

91% of those benefiting from entitlement programs are either elderly, a member of working family, or seriously disabled which means the well published welfare queen is an anomaly and certainly not representative of people on public assistance.

Many are in poverty due to the choices they made in life. In the end, whether they chose to be in poverty or made choices that produced that result, there is no difference. It's a result of a choice.
Too many say poor people didn't have the same chances as others. That's incorrect. I went to school with rich and not so rich. Everyone of us has the same books, teachers, lessons, desks, etc. How is that not the same opportunity?

Most of that oversight on those programs is a joke.

Whether they chose poverty or not, the result is the same. Society still has to contend with the resulting increased crime, broken families, family abuse, addiction, physical and mental disease.

Good schooling will make little difference if the parents are teaching the child by word and deed that they can't succeed which is common among the very poor. If the child does not develop self esteem in their early years, the chance of any real success in school or in life is not good. As adults they are very likely to spend their life moving between low paid jobs separated by months of unemployment and government support.

Today a large segment of entitlement money goes not to the chronically unemployed but the working poor. 60% of those on food stamps are either working or were recently employed. Over 40% of the families receiving TANF, have at least one adult working. Over half of the non-elderly in HUD housing are working families. The problem is not the people are not working. The problem is jobs don't pay enough money to support the family.

In most states, a family of two parents, one working and one caring for the 3 kids with a family income of $30,000 a year is likely to be receiving a couple hundred dollars in food stamps, Medicaid, free or reduced lunches for the kids. If we reduce federal spending on these programs, this family would still survive but would have a harder time doing so.

The result is the same. It's not one person's place to financially offset the results whether the choice was poverty or poverty was the result of bad choices.

The problem isn't that jobs aren't paying enough, the problem is those with such low skills they warrant low wages think someone should pay them more than those wages are worth. If someone offers what's worth $8/hour on the open market in skill and they get $8/hour, the problem is with the one offering not the one paying. Are you saying an employer should pay someone more than what they offer is worth?

The problem with that family of 5 getting those handouts is they don't pay the taxes that funds those handouts, all the while, complaining that they aren't being HANDED enough. In fact, you could almost double the family income and they still wouldn't pay income taxes. To be exact, the family income could be $58,249 based solely on the makeup of the family, and they wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

I actually do agree with on taxes. The middle class is not paying enough taxes. However, I doubt a family of 5 at a $30,000 yearly income could afford to pay more than 1 or 2% of gross income in taxes without seriously effecting their quality of life.

Although a person may only be worth his pay of $8/hr, it does not change the fact that $8 is hardly enough to support a single person much less a family. If the employee wants to make more, then he or she should get more education/training , right. However, that presents two problems. Higher education is not cheap. In fact for someone making $8/hr, it's a fortune. Secondly, many people in low paying jobs do not have the intelligence and educational background needed to be successful in the kind of advanced education in demand by employers. Far too many graduates of community colleges are going back to the same jobs they had before they started school.

I think the trends we are seeing now will continue, higher costs in higher education, more competition in higher education, and falling demand for unskilled and low skilled workers. That's going to mean more pressure on government to provide assistance for low income workers.

 

[westwall]

I'm not religious so I have never read the Bible so can't help you there. However, I do know that merely giving people money without teaching them HOW to earn money only serves to make them dependent on you who have given them the money. That is a lesson that has been learned repeatedly over the millennia. How do you deal with people who CHOOSE to remain in poverty? Must the rest of society be forced to care for them?

I actually DO agree with some aspect of that to be honest. If someone wants to check out of society I am quite happy to give them a two room apartment, feed them, give them a nice TV and a game system and let them play away till they die. The trade off is they don't get to vote, or have children. They become wards of the State and as such they have no right to procreate.

Now, should they decide that they no longer wish to live that way and decide to become productive members of society then that door is always open for them too. Nothing is permanent.

How does that work for you?

I don't see poverty as a choice. Many of those that do are basing their reasoning off of singular circumstances. When you look at statistics, it is clear that social mobility in the United States is a very unrealistic concept. It is difficult or even impossible for people to move between classes today. The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. People are definitely born into conditions out of their own control that do not foster economic success, and that is reality for millions of American's in the United States. That is not a choice. Having come from a relatively poor family, I can not see how anyone would choose to be poor.

Most of the government programs do have features that encourage employment. For example in most states to receive food stamps, you must be actively looking for work or in some job training program. Federal assistance for childcare which are direct subsidies or tax credits are tied to employment. TANF for two parent family requires that one of the parent be working or actively seeking work. Receipt of cash is limited to 48 months.

There are programs that can't reasonably be tied to employment such as Medicaid. Some housing programs pay a part of the rent so the family has to have other income. Others pay all the housing costs.

91% of those benefiting from entitlement programs are either elderly, a member of working family, or seriously disabled which means the well published welfare queen is an anomaly and certainly not representative of people on public assistance.

Many are in poverty due to the choices they made in life. In the end, whether they chose to be in poverty or made choices that produced that result, there is no difference. It's a result of a choice.
Too many say poor people didn't have the same chances as others. That's incorrect. I went to school with rich and not so rich. Everyone of us has the same books, teachers, lessons, desks, etc. How is that not the same opportunity?

Most of that oversight on those programs is a joke.

Whether they chose poverty or not, the result is the same. Society still has to contend with the resulting increased crime, broken families, family abuse, addiction, physical and mental disease.

Good schooling will make little difference if the parents are teaching the child by word and deed that they can't succeed which is common among the very poor. If the child does not develop self esteem in their early years, the chance of any real success in school or in life is not good. As adults they are very likely to spend their life moving between low paid jobs separated by months of unemployment and government support.

Today a large segment of entitlement money goes not to the chronically unemployed but the working poor. 60% of those on food stamps are either working or were recently employed. Over 40% of the families receiving TANF, have at least one adult working. Over half of the non-elderly in HUD housing are working families. The problem is not the people are not working. The problem is jobs don't pay enough money to support the family.

In most states, a family of two parents, one working and one caring for the 3 kids with a family income of $30,000 a year is likely to be receiving a couple hundred dollars in food stamps, Medicaid, free or reduced lunches for the kids. If we reduce federal spending on these programs, this family would still survive but would have a harder time doing so.

The result is the same. It's not one person's place to financially offset the results whether the choice was poverty or poverty was the result of bad choices.

The problem isn't that jobs aren't paying enough, the problem is those with such low skills they warrant low wages think someone should pay them more than those wages are worth. If someone offers what's worth $8/hour on the open market in skill and they get $8/hour, the problem is with the one offering not the one paying. Are you saying an employer should pay someone more than what they offer is worth?

The problem with that family of 5 getting those handouts is they don't pay the taxes that funds those handouts, all the while, complaining that they aren't being HANDED enough. In fact, you could almost double the family income and they still wouldn't pay income taxes. To be exact, the family income could be $58,249 based solely on the makeup of the family, and they wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

I actually do agree with on taxes. The middle class is not paying enough taxes. However, I doubt a family of 5 at a $30,000 yearly income could afford to pay more than 1 or 2% of gross income in taxes without seriously effecting their quality of life.

Although a person may only be worth his pay of $8/hr, it does not change the fact that $8 is hardly enough to support a single person much less a family. If the employee wants to make more, then he or she should get more education/training , right. However, that presents two problems. Higher education is not cheap. In fact for someone making $8/hr, it's a fortune. Secondly, many people in low paying jobs do not have the intelligence and educational background needed to be successful in the kind of advanced education in demand by employers. Far too many graduates of community colleges are going back to the same jobs they had before they started school.

I think the trends we are seeing now will continue, higher costs in higher education, more competition in higher education, and falling demand for unskilled and low skilled workers. That's going to mean more pressure on government to provide assistance for low income workers.

Community colleges are a joke to be frank. Well, I'm being harsh there....they are a joke because they are being forced to do the education that the high schools USED to do. Far too many kids going to community colleges are having to enroll in remedial math, English and science classes first, because the education they received in high school was sub par.

It truly is a crime what is being done to these kids. It truly is.

 

[dblack]

Community colleges are a joke to be frank. Well, I'm being harsh there....

Indeed you are. Depends entirely on the college.

 

[Flopper]

I don't see poverty as a choice. Many of those that do are basing their reasoning off of singular circumstances. When you look at statistics, it is clear that social mobility in the United States is a very unrealistic concept. It is difficult or even impossible for people to move between classes today. The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. People are definitely born into conditions out of their own control that do not foster economic success, and that is reality for millions of American's in the United States. That is not a choice. Having come from a relatively poor family, I can not see how anyone would choose to be poor.

Most of the government programs do have features that encourage employment. For example in most states to receive food stamps, you must be actively looking for work or in some job training program. Federal assistance for childcare which are direct subsidies or tax credits are tied to employment. TANF for two parent family requires that one of the parent be working or actively seeking work. Receipt of cash is limited to 48 months.

There are programs that can't reasonably be tied to employment such as Medicaid. Some housing programs pay a part of the rent so the family has to have other income. Others pay all the housing costs.

91% of those benefiting from entitlement programs are either elderly, a member of working family, or seriously disabled which means the well published welfare queen is an anomaly and certainly not representative of people on public assistance.

Many are in poverty due to the choices they made in life. In the end, whether they chose to be in poverty or made choices that produced that result, there is no difference. It's a result of a choice.
Too many say poor people didn't have the same chances as others. That's incorrect. I went to school with rich and not so rich. Everyone of us has the same books, teachers, lessons, desks, etc. How is that not the same opportunity?

Most of that oversight on those programs is a joke.

Whether they chose poverty or not, the result is the same. Society still has to contend with the resulting increased crime, broken families, family abuse, addiction, physical and mental disease.

Good schooling will make little difference if the parents are teaching the child by word and deed that they can't succeed which is common among the very poor. If the child does not develop self esteem in their early years, the chance of any real success in school or in life is not good. As adults they are very likely to spend their life moving between low paid jobs separated by months of unemployment and government support.

Today a large segment of entitlement money goes not to the chronically unemployed but the working poor. 60% of those on food stamps are either working or were recently employed. Over 40% of the families receiving TANF, have at least one adult working. Over half of the non-elderly in HUD housing are working families. The problem is not the people are not working. The problem is jobs don't pay enough money to support the family.

In most states, a family of two parents, one working and one caring for the 3 kids with a family income of $30,000 a year is likely to be receiving a couple hundred dollars in food stamps, Medicaid, free or reduced lunches for the kids. If we reduce federal spending on these programs, this family would still survive but would have a harder time doing so.

The result is the same. It's not one person's place to financially offset the results whether the choice was poverty or poverty was the result of bad choices.

The problem isn't that jobs aren't paying enough, the problem is those with such low skills they warrant low wages think someone should pay them more than those wages are worth. If someone offers what's worth $8/hour on the open market in skill and they get $8/hour, the problem is with the one offering not the one paying. Are you saying an employer should pay someone more than what they offer is worth?

The problem with that family of 5 getting those handouts is they don't pay the taxes that funds those handouts, all the while, complaining that they aren't being HANDED enough. In fact, you could almost double the family income and they still wouldn't pay income taxes. To be exact, the family income could be $58,249 based solely on the makeup of the family, and they wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

I actually do agree with on taxes. The middle class is not paying enough taxes. However, I doubt a family of 5 at a $30,000 yearly income could afford to pay more than 1 or 2% of gross income in taxes without seriously effecting their quality of life.

Although a person may only be worth his pay of $8/hr, it does not change the fact that $8 is hardly enough to support a single person much less a family. If the employee wants to make more, then he or she should get more education/training , right. However, that presents two problems. Higher education is not cheap. In fact for someone making $8/hr, it's a fortune. Secondly, many people in low paying jobs do not have the intelligence and educational background needed to be successful in the kind of advanced education in demand by employers. Far too many graduates of community colleges are going back to the same jobs they had before they started school.

I think the trends we are seeing now will continue, higher costs in higher education, more competition in higher education, and falling demand for unskilled and low skilled workers. That's going to mean more pressure on government to provide assistance for low income workers.

Community colleges are a joke to be frank. Well, I'm being harsh there....they are a joke because they are being forced to do the education that the high schools USED to do. Far too many kids going to community colleges are having to enroll in remedial math, English and science classes first, because the education they received in high school was sub par.

It truly is a crime what is being done to these kids. It truly is.

Unfortunately, I had a job a few years ago, teaching computer and networking classes in the local community college. A couple of months ago I saw one my old students who graduated. She was working at Red Robin as a waitress, same job she had when she was in school. I ask her how she's doing. She said, "OK, just trying to pay off a $4,000 education loan and still trying to get my first job in the field".

If you're going go to a community college, you should get a par-professional degree where there is some local demand or continue your studies at a 4 year school. Without real experience, a community college graduate can't compete graduates from a 4 year schools.

 

[dblack]

If you're going go to a community college, you should get a par-professional degree where there is some local demand or continue your studies at a 4 year school. Without real experience, a community college graduate can't compete graduates from a 4 year schools.

I think this is definitely a 'your-mileage-may-vary' situation. Both my sons started out via the community college route. Both transferred to top level universities. One is an engineer for Google in SF and the other is getting his PhD in philosophy at a tenured-track program.

 

[westwall]

If you're going go to a community college, you should get a par-professional degree where there is some local demand or continue your studies at a 4 year school. Without real experience, a community college graduate can't compete graduates from a 4 year schools.

I think this is definitely a 'your-mileage-may-vary' situation. Both my sons started out via the community college route. Both transferred to top level universities. One is an engineer for Google in SF and the other is getting his PhD in philosophy at a tenured-track program.

Flopper very clearly stated that you need to continue on to a four year institution for a two year degree to matter. That being said what is the goal of the philosophy major? Teach at the alma mater or go elsewhere?

 

[dblack]

Flopper very clearly stated that you need to continue on to a four year institution for a two year degree to matter.

Yup. I wasn't intending to contradict him.

That being said what is the goal of the philosophy major? Teach at the alma mater or go elsewhere?

Teach elsewhere, mostly likely. As I said, it's a tenured-track program, meaning he's got a decent shot of find a position as a professor at a major university. As a failsafe, he's a hell of a programmer in his own right and has that as a backup plan.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't see poverty as a choice. Many of those that do are basing their reasoning off of singular circumstances. When you look at statistics, it is clear that social mobility in the United States is a very unrealistic concept. It is difficult or even impossible for people to move between classes today. The rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. People are definitely born into conditions out of their own control that do not foster economic success, and that is reality for millions of American's in the United States. That is not a choice. Having come from a relatively poor family, I can not see how anyone would choose to be poor.

Most of the government programs do have features that encourage employment. For example in most states to receive food stamps, you must be actively looking for work or in some job training program. Federal assistance for childcare which are direct subsidies or tax credits are tied to employment. TANF for two parent family requires that one of the parent be working or actively seeking work. Receipt of cash is limited to 48 months.

There are programs that can't reasonably be tied to employment such as Medicaid. Some housing programs pay a part of the rent so the family has to have other income. Others pay all the housing costs.

91% of those benefiting from entitlement programs are either elderly, a member of working family, or seriously disabled which means the well published welfare queen is an anomaly and certainly not representative of people on public assistance.

Many are in poverty due to the choices they made in life. In the end, whether they chose to be in poverty or made choices that produced that result, there is no difference. It's a result of a choice.
Too many say poor people didn't have the same chances as others. That's incorrect. I went to school with rich and not so rich. Everyone of us has the same books, teachers, lessons, desks, etc. How is that not the same opportunity?

Most of that oversight on those programs is a joke.

Whether they chose poverty or not, the result is the same. Society still has to contend with the resulting increased crime, broken families, family abuse, addiction, physical and mental disease.

Good schooling will make little difference if the parents are teaching the child by word and deed that they can't succeed which is common among the very poor. If the child does not develop self esteem in their early years, the chance of any real success in school or in life is not good. As adults they are very likely to spend their life moving between low paid jobs separated by months of unemployment and government support.

Today a large segment of entitlement money goes not to the chronically unemployed but the working poor. 60% of those on food stamps are either working or were recently employed. Over 40% of the families receiving TANF, have at least one adult working. Over half of the non-elderly in HUD housing are working families. The problem is not the people are not working. The problem is jobs don't pay enough money to support the family.

In most states, a family of two parents, one working and one caring for the 3 kids with a family income of $30,000 a year is likely to be receiving a couple hundred dollars in food stamps, Medicaid, free or reduced lunches for the kids. If we reduce federal spending on these programs, this family would still survive but would have a harder time doing so.

The result is the same. It's not one person's place to financially offset the results whether the choice was poverty or poverty was the result of bad choices.

The problem isn't that jobs aren't paying enough, the problem is those with such low skills they warrant low wages think someone should pay them more than those wages are worth. If someone offers what's worth $8/hour on the open market in skill and they get $8/hour, the problem is with the one offering not the one paying. Are you saying an employer should pay someone more than what they offer is worth?

The problem with that family of 5 getting those handouts is they don't pay the taxes that funds those handouts, all the while, complaining that they aren't being HANDED enough. In fact, you could almost double the family income and they still wouldn't pay income taxes. To be exact, the family income could be $58,249 based solely on the makeup of the family, and they wouldn't pay a dime in income taxes.

I actually do agree with on taxes. The middle class is not paying enough taxes. However, I doubt a family of 5 at a $30,000 yearly income could afford to pay more than 1 or 2% of gross income in taxes without seriously effecting their quality of life.

Although a person may only be worth his pay of $8/hr, it does not change the fact that $8 is hardly enough to support a single person much less a family. If the employee wants to make more, then he or she should get more education/training , right. However, that presents two problems. Higher education is not cheap. In fact for someone making $8/hr, it's a fortune. Secondly, many people in low paying jobs do not have the intelligence and educational background needed to be successful in the kind of advanced education in demand by employers. Far too many graduates of community colleges are going back to the same jobs they had before they started school.

I think the trends we are seeing now will continue, higher costs in higher education, more competition in higher education, and falling demand for unskilled and low skilled workers. That's going to mean more pressure on government to provide assistance for low income workers.

Community colleges are a joke to be frank. Well, I'm being harsh there....they are a joke because they are being forced to do the education that the high schools USED to do. Far too many kids going to community colleges are having to enroll in remedial math, English and science classes first, because the education they received in high school was sub par.

It truly is a crime what is being done to these kids. It truly is.

There is a well-known technical college where I live. It offers two year degree programs, certificate programs in many construction areas, non-certificate programs where people who want to improve on various skills can take courses as they desire, and college transfer credit classes in math, english, etc. that most 4 year schools will accept.

Like you said, and it's predominant in the degree programs, the students take remedial classes for no credit, things they should have learned in high school, before they can get into the course work toward the degree. In my opinion, and it doesn't matter if it's a 4 year school, technical college, or community college, if you have to take remedial classes, you don't belong in college. College is supposed to be for those prepared to go not someone that needs to take classes and learn things they should have learned before being allowed to graduate high school.