-
Are Conservatives right, poor people deserve to be poor?
What happens to the poor people when you provide some help?
[link=http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/18/what-happens-when-the-poor-receive-a-stipend/?]http://opinionator.blogs….or-receive-a-stipend/?[/link]
You feel controlled by the world when youre poor, she said. That was simply no longer the case.
Professor Costello and Professor Akee dont entirely agree. They think cold hard cash made the real difference. For one thing, Professor Akee says, outcomes started improving as soon as the supplements began, before many of the communitywide services went into effect.
If thats the primary takeaway, then we have some thinking to do. Some people feel that if youre poor, its because you deserve it, Professor Costello said. If youre sick, its because you deserve it, she said.
But if giving poor families with children a little extra cash not only helps them, but also saves society money in the long run, then, says Professor Costello, withholding the help is something other than rational.
Youre not doing it because it pains you to do it, she said. Thats a very valuable lesson for society to learn.
-
179 Replies
-
Of course not.. conservatives feel you are poor because of the decisions you made.. and therefore you should shoulder some of that responsibility. If you want to get out of being poor it is up to you do change your situation… don’t you agree?
We also know that by giving people anything they generally tend to become lazy and somewhat into trouble. What you generally have is the adults of the political party who tells the world we can’t afford the utopian world the Democrats portray in an effort to buy votes..
The Democrats are using the idea of responsibility for your own behavior as a means to ‘create monsters’.. Just like the ‘mean parent’.
I wouldn’t take the actions of a petulant child any more seriously than the charges by the Left in their attempt to buy votes with your money.-
Quote from Hero of Reason
Of course not.. conservatives feel you are poor because of the decisions you made.. and therefore you should shoulder some of that responsibility. If you want to get out of being poor it is up to you do change your situation… don’t you agree?
That has got to be the most ridiculous perspective I’ve heard on planet earth.
Yes it’s up to us to change our position but to imply that therefore it’s ALWAYS possible, or even HIGHLY possible to change our position, is idiotic.
The belief that we are somehow in complete control of our circumstance is an imbecilic view of the world.
-
If you can’t convince people to even finish high school.. why would you expect them to make proper choices for the rest of their lives?. it is possible to change your situation..
-
Quote from Hero of Reason
If you can’t convince people to even finish high school.. why would you expect them to make proper choices for the rest of their lives?. it is possible to change your situation..
And what exactly do you expect them to do? Clean up their act and grab one of those millions of jobs that employers are waiting to fill? Has it occurred to you that millions of Americans simply do not have the intellectual capacity to graduate the standards of high school?
You don’t have a clue about any other socioeconomic reality outside of your own cave.
Is it not possible that some people are simply so ignorant, unintelligent, and uncoordinated that they are unable to find a job to fit their limitations, other than minimum below-living wage menial tasks?
Or do you think everyone could be a wealthy physician if they just sat down and tried their hardest to “change their position”?
Have you REALLY thought this through?
-
In the bleedin heart rush to find new an better ways to hemmorage out my money for makin yourselves feel good, you keep forgettin one thing: we have thrown trillions and trillions an trillions at the War on Poverty and havent accomplished a blessed thing. It AINT all about the money.
If you go back and read your article, youll find it deals mostly with Native AMEricans who have a diffrent culture than those in inner cities who are makin up the mjajority of problems in cities like Detroit.
Yea, I’ll grant you givin parents extra money will make for better parenting IF and that is one huge honking IF, that money gets spent on the kids!!!! But in the inner cities it don’t. It gets spent on crack, on pot, on coke, on meth, on iPhones and big screen TVs an $400 sneakers and gold tooth grillls. And NOT on the unfortunate kids.
You REALLLLLLLY want to help the PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPOOOOOOORRRRR children? REALLY? Honestly!??? take tham the heck OUT of that environment, and away from their worthless parents. Raise them with values that didnt come form the street and the gutter. I said somewhere before, Babies are babies and they need lots of lovin. If you REALllly want to fix something, get those little babies OUT of the destructive H#ll you do-gooder Communists have created.
Can’t wait to hear your bellows of anger on this one, but as usual, you KNOW Im right.-
And I am sure you are ready willing and able to adopt CE…should I put you down for twenty?
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
You REALLLLLLLY want to help the PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPOOOOOOORRRRR children? REALLY? Honestly!??? take tham the heck OUT of that environment, and away from their worthless parents. Raise them with values that didnt come form the street and the gutter. I said somewhere before, Babies are babies and they need lots of lovin. If you REALllly want to fix something, get those little babies OUT of the destructive H#ll you do-gooder Communists have created.
What specifically is your proposal to help the poor children you are talking about? How would you take them out of the environment? You use the word Communists a lot. In pure communism, meaning everyone is equal, wouldn’t the poor children have the same chances as more affluent children?-
1. Limit welfare benefits as;
a. single mothers – until last child is in 1st grade; then job train. Note: limit family to 2 children. Single mothers should have learned after the first where babies come from.
b. parents must test drug free ….hair follicle test, before receiving any type of public assistance
c. if two parent family, one receives job training
2. get over the idea that you are “owed” a good life.
3. boot camps for teens with behavior problems
4. uniforms for public schools (take away the she/he has and I don’t….everyone is on the same playing field).
I could go on and on…. -
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Quote from CardiacEvent
You REALLLLLLLY want to help the PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPOOOOOOORRRRR children? REALLY? Honestly!??? take tham the heck OUT of that environment, and away from their worthless parents. Raise them with values that didnt come form the street and the gutter. I said somewhere before, Babies are babies and they need lots of lovin. If you REALllly want to fix something, get those little babies OUT of the destructive H#ll you do-gooder Communists have created.
What specifically is your proposal to help the poor children you are talking about? How would you take them out of the environment? You use the word Communists a lot. In pure communism, meaning everyone is equal, wouldn’t the poor children have the same chances as more affluent children?
Marx used that philosophy as his basis. Except there is one thing that Mankind will never be able to break away from and that is the pecking order of being “Lead Dog”. Even in Communism, man wants to be in power. Lennon, Stalin, Kruschev. They had to have thought as themselves more important than the Farmer and Laborer. It is in our nature to be first; take control; be on top. There are two things in life I live by: (biblical)
1. Never through your pearls in front of Swines.
2. If you don’t work, you don’t eat.
Help, support, and give someone a chance. After that, its up to them to succeed.-
Yes, except sometimes the deck is stacked. And that alone can take a toll as the article points out.
-
-
-
Never a truer word spoken. We will not be fully enlightened until we make that difficult decision to support all newborns by ensuring they have a reasonable upbringing. But how to do it is the real difficulty. Are poor people really partly responsible for their neural pathology wrought by bad genes, poor antenatal conditions and bad early life treatment? I don’t think so. Yes, they can modify the effects of this if they have insight and extraordinary will, but if they don’t is that their fault?
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
You REALLLLLLLY want to help the PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPOOOOOOORRRRR children? REALLY? Honestly!??? take tham the heck OUT of that environment, and away from their worthless parents. Raise them with values that didnt come form the street and the gutter. I said somewhere before, Babies are babies and they need lots of lovin. If you REALllly want to fix something, get those little babies OUT of the destructive H#ll you do-gooder Communists have created.
So you are saying that we can solve the problem of poverty by take the kids away from poor parents in inner cities?
Sure, no communism in that philosophy at all, right? It’s a perfectly American thing to do, and complies perfectly with the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the US Constitution.
You are a sick piece of work.
-
Takes one to know one.
To be specific, Im not sayin yank every kid whos single parent is below the poverty line, but those who are activly ruinin their lives and that of their little babies with drugs and thugs.
That bein said, you know I’m right here an you are tragically terrbly wrong. All YOU and your mentally ill ilk wanna do is keep shovellin dollar after dollar after milion after billion after trillion down the cesppool that our iner cities have become. Nothin but cycles of drugs drinkin violence, and unwed motherhood. IT has GOT to stop, it has got to be interrupted, and thats what I suggest…
All you Statist Communists wanna do is keep throwin MY money and more of MY money and still more of MY money into “welfare” that just pays people to do the same dam thing they’ve been doin. Great work genius. You and your spew have destroyed millions of lives, but you feeeeeeell soooooooo ggoooooooood that youve hellllllllpppppppeeeeedd the ppooooor. Youve only heeeeeelllllpppppedddd them to STAY poor, but your kind never bothers to stick round to see what damage you caused.
My idea is harsh, but has at least some small chance of savin some of these poor lil babies. Your misplaced delusional “kindness” just condemns them to the same putrid poverty cycle, generation after generation after generation after generation. You guys are the sickos.
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
To be specific, Im not sayin yank every kid whos single parent is below the poverty line, but those who are activly ruinin their lives and that of their little babies with drugs and thugs.
OK, with all the noise you’re making about it, how many people REALLY comprise that population who are[i] “ruinin their lives and that of their little babies with drugs and thugs”[/i]? You talk as if it’s most of the “47%”. I’m VERY curious why what you are prescribing (in such a population size) will in any way solve any problem with the economy and labor force in this country. Please, seriously, quote numbers instead of just emoting. I truly don’t know how big or small that population is, but I’m doubting its as large as you’re implying.
And it’s not YOUR money; it never was. If the federal government suddenly omitted EVERY SINGLE TAX you pay, you will actually gain zero purchase power and might even lose ground due to additional inefficiencies that will plague state and local governments.
The vast majority of insurance providers (government and private), as well as employers would pretty much IMMEDIATELY cut back what they pay their clients and employees by a corresponding gross pay. There is simply no way the majority of payers are going to suddenly allow their clients and employees to take home a 25%-50% increase in net.
Why would you think you would enjoy a red cent more than you are right now if federal taxes suddenly went away? In the very least, state and local taxes would at least rise accordingly, if not moreso.
IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS.
Comparatively speaking, the USA takes less tax from its citizens than most other developed countries. And yet it has what the rest of the world considers to be the strongest economy on the planet.
I agree there are many critical problems that remain to be solved in impoverished America, but taking the harsh steps you suggest is not how the USA got to where it is today. It’s certainly not the USA I would be proud to call “home”.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but I’d like you to substantiate your allegation that the[i] “ruinin…”[/i] demographic that you so passionately detest really makes that much of a difference to our economy compared to the hit on the economy if those same people were let out on the streets with no provision for shelter or food.
What’s your plan?
-
Hail Komrade Karl Marx Lux! If ANYONE ever doubted you were a Communist, you just proved them wrong.
[blockquote] [b]IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. [/b]
[/blockquote]
Yes, it IS my money, and you and your Komrades can keep your dirty stinking hands OUT of MY POCKET!-
CE has a wonderful plan…take babies from people he doesn’t like and indoctrinate them to his world view. A regular David Koresh…
-
I think it’s sad that Frumious asks the wrong question, even sadder that it’s on purpose. No “conservative” has ever suggested that anyone “deserves” to be anything. It’s a totally meaningless concept and shows more about Frumious than it does any other person or group.
-
The argument that any money that any American has right now is “theirs” and that any change to social or tax policy to lessen that amount or future earnings is “theft” is simply wrong.
Taxation is not theft.
Redistribution is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate action to take as a respone to the current aberration in our society in which the wealthy and political elites have abused the political system and tax code to remove money from the hands of the less powerful and put it in their own bank accounts.
Taxation is not theft. Changes to taxes is not theft. Using taxes to support social programs for the poor is not theft.-
That is correct, and let me add… taken tax breaks based on you income and line of work, is not theft either. No matter what party you are from, YOU WILL SEEK TO TAKE THOSE TAX BREAKS EVERY TIME. Everyone is a Conservative on 4/15. Everyone one.
-
“Redistribution is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate action to take as a respone to the current aberration in our society in which the wealthy and political elites have abused the political system and tax code to remove money from the hands of the less powerful and put it in their own bank accounts. ”
Fallacy.
I have never removed money from the hands of the less powerful and put it in my bank account. Although I will admit that a current crop of politicians is using the tax system to buy votes in perpetuity.-
The fact that [i]you[/i] personally never did it does not make my paragraph that you quoted a “fallacy”.
That paragraph is true. -
Quote from radmike
“Redistribution is a perfectly reasonable and appropriate action to take as a respone to the current aberration in our society in which the wealthy and political elites have abused the political system and tax code to remove money from the hands of the less powerful and put it in their own bank accounts. ”
Fallacy.
I have never removed money from the hands of the less powerful and put it in my bank account. Although I will admit that a current crop of politicians is using the tax system to buy votes in perpetuity.
Redistribution does not only happen “taking” from the more affluents & rich & giving to the poorer. People can be made poor when their jobs and incomes are taken away & given to others who work for less solely to increase profits. Think of American industry over the past 3 decades sent to China so Nike sneakers, for instance can be made for less than $5.00 total cost each and then sold for over $100 each. While getting American tax breaks and subsidies.
Why is that not a form of redistribution? Why is that not the most onerous and destructive form of redistribution?
Under these circumstances what the government did was to lower taxes for more and more lower income groups, in some cases even provide credits or stipends in the form of direct assistance (think of Walmart “associates”). This is redistribution in the form of corporate welfare almost directly subsidizing Walmart and allowing Walmart to hire these “associates” at near poverty wages.
Then, noticing that people of median income (think $50 as the average family income!) or less pay lower taxes than they did a few decades ago the right-wing starts whining about “distribution” and the government “stealing” their $$$ and claiming the lower income groups are not holding up their end. Notice also that under Republican administrations, the deficits grossly increase (even under a good economy) while supporting lower taxes for everyone in some sort of egalitarian show. Except the vast cuts are not going to those at the lower end but to the upper income groups. And while deficits increase.
Why is none of that “redistribution?” And why is that OK redistribution but not when it goes to support those at the median income and lower groups?
Oh yeah, the other right meme, “they” don’t deserve it because they are lazy and…(choose your derogative descriptions). -
So when did I redistribute money from the poor? When I hired staff? When I built my facility? When I provide free care to low income patients? When I pay taxes? Or when I donate to charity? Which one is it?
Would you rather that government raise taxes on the Walmart worker? Is that what you want? -
Quote from radmike
So when did I redistribute money from the poor? When I hired staff? When I built my facility? When I provide free care to low income patients? When I pay taxes? Or when I donate to charity? Which one is it?
Would you rather that government raise taxes on the Walmart worker? Is that what you want?
When did “poor” people redistribute money from you?
You have things upside down. You are the beneficiary of favorable tax codes that reduced your taxes over the decades at the expense of the middle and lower income classes even as you complain of redistribution to the poor.
So how do we raise the taxes on Walmart employees while we are providing them government assistance to save Walmart million$? You have things upside down again, improve their pay & then then can afford taxes while they get off government assistance. -
Really? Raise their pay so walmart has to charge more for those goods, to cover the increased salaries, that the walmart worker then has to buy?
If we made the minimum wage at McDonalds at least $15 do you not expect the dollar menu to go away?
I guess we should make everyone’s salary a million dollars a year, right? Then there would be no poor and we would all be millionaires! Utopia at last! -
So keep the subsidy in place so Walmart can pay meager wages? And so we all pay in the long run, don’t we? Maybe there should be slightly lower profits?
There’s a concept. Lower profits for better living standards for all as opposed to higher profits for the select with a lower standard of living for more. -
And I suppose you would like to be the one to enforce your concept of fairness?
-
Quote from radmike
Really? Raise their pay so walmart has to charge more for those goods, to cover the increased salaries, that the walmart worker then has to buy?
If we made the minimum wage at McDonalds at least $15 do you not expect the dollar menu to go away?I guess we should make everyone’s salary a million dollars a year, right? Then there would be no poor and we would all be millionaires! Utopia at last!
You’re talking out of both sides of your mouth. You can’t have it both ways.
-
Your persistently incorrect opinion. At least I am not talking out of another orifice.
-
A biscuit would have to be pretty bad to cost a dollar
-
First one who mentions Hitler loses.
You lose, mike. -
Your rules, not mine.
-
People “deserve to be poor” in the same way that “all men deserve to die”
If that statement doesn’t provoke thought, I don’t know what will. -
A sign over extermination camp entrance where you either die from work or you die in the gas chambers.
You make a lot of sense, mike. Bad taste.
[link=http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2012/aug/13/dailymail-twitter]http://www.theguardian.co…g/13/dailymail-twitter[/link]
-
-
-
-
Really Cigar? What do you think the whole Ayn Rand “makers and takers” philosophy is about?
-
Quote from Cigar
I think it’s sad that Frumious asks the wrong question, even sadder that it’s on purpose. No “conservative” has ever suggested that anyone “deserves” to be anything. It’s a totally meaningless concept and shows more about Frumious than it does any other person or group.
Uh no, you are 101% wrong. That is a primary meme from the Right for many years now, poor people are poor because, they are lazy parasites, are stupid, don’t prepare, spend too much, are fat, are uneducated & don’t try to improve their lot, make poor choices, have unstable marriages if they are married at all, and so on and so on and so on. Just go back & real past posts in AM or most any other right wing & libertarian media & you will hear the same story, it’s their own fault.
-
-
-
Quote from CardiacEvent
Hail Komrade Karl Marx Lux! If ANYONE ever doubted you were a Communist, you just proved them wrong.
[blockquote][b]IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. IT’S NOT YOUR MONEY, AND NEVER WAS. [/b]
[/blockquote]
Yes, it IS my money, and you and your Komrades can keep your dirty stinking hands OUT of MY POCKET!Obviously you are the one that continues to be obsessed with wealth, not me. You can’t even answer the simplest question posed to you. I asked you to tell me why you think you’d be ONE CENT richer if the government suddenly stopped taxing you.
Do you honestly believe you would be any richer if you suddenly were not taxed? If so, WHY?!
-
-
-
You should end up on the street in the dead of winter with a drug addiction and two kids who haven’t eaten in days. Your incorrect use of the word communism, and the English language in general, is offensive.
-
-
-
Quote from Cigar
I think it’s sad that Frumious asks the wrong question, even sadder that it’s on purpose. No “conservative” has ever suggested that anyone “deserves” to be anything. It’s a totally meaningless concept and shows more about Frumious than it does any other person or group.
Isn’t that what the 47% BS was all about???
-
Quote from radmike
And I suppose you would like to be the one to enforce your concept of fairness?
WTF does that mean???
-
Who decides how much profit one is allowed to make?
-
Quote from Ben Casey
Who decides how much profit one is allowed to make?
Who decides how much “associates” should get in government assistance to make up the difference in pay and a livable wage?
-
Who decides how much one can earn?
Who enforces?
Any exceptions?-
Quote from radmike
Who decides how much one can earn?
Who enforces?
Any exceptions?As I said, “Who decides how much “associates” should get in government assistance to make up the difference in pay and a livable wage? ”
We support Walmart’s profits by subsidizing Walmart, et al paying substandard wages. Apparently that is OK? who decided that? I don’t remember voting. Do you?-
Walmart sets their wages (Although there is a minimum). People apply for jobs and are paid as per contract. No force or coercion.
That is one difference between a private entity and a government. Coercion.-
Contract? Walmart? BTW, Walmart is not the only offender & I doubt any employee or “associate” works under contract. More like desperation to extend the government assistance checks.
Why is it so necessary for you to give Walmart a pass & yet condemn government for helping citizens who are actually working. Walmart knows they are getting a subsidy since they will assist associates in getting government assistance. And help “associates” with fund raisers for other associates who can’t even afford Thanksgiving or X-mas dinners!
Turn a blind eye for corporations? Support corporate welfare? Why? Walmart & other fabulously rich corporations can afford to do without the handouts from the government.
Sounds like you support double standards here, help the rich corporations, condemn the poor for accepting government assistance and the government for providing such support.
-
Yes. Employment is a contract. Both sides willingly engage in this agreement. No coercion.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from radmike
Yes. Employment is a contract. Both sides willingly engage in this agreement. No coercion.
And what exactly are the terms of the “contract” for “at will” employees?
-
I could be wrong but I would imagine that when you take a job
at Walmart they tell you what you will be paid per hour and tell you about any other benefits. I think at that point you can decide whether you are willing to accept this compensation. Sounds like a contract to me. Are you suggesting that this is not how it works. Does Walmart change the compensation package after you start working? That would be wrong.-
A contract for what is my question. Can you or mike answer that, Ben?
[link=http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/employment-at-will-definition-30022.html]http://www.nolo.com/legal…-definition-30022.html[/link]The law generally presumes that you are employed at will unless you can prove otherwise, usually through written documents relating to your employment or oral statements your employer has made.
It is an empty statement for either you or mike to say a person is “under contract” or “signs” a contract in answer to sub-par incomes from an employer. So what? What’s your point? Neither of you have said what your point is except that an employee and employer have at least en implied contract, but that is empty of meaning if you supply no meaning.
I mean Sangeeta Richard “signed a contract” agreeing to pay her $537 a month. Yet there is a scandal. Why?
What are you 2 trying to infer?
-
Quote from Ben Casey
Are you suggesting that this is not how it works.
Ben, please, yes, that is exactly NOT how it works.
You talk as though the people who work of Walmarts have been interviewing around and have been accepted into other higher paying jobs but decided on their own free will to take the one that pays crap.
Who on earth do you think you’re fooling with your nonsense?
And PLEASE don’t tell us you actually believe the junk your writing!
-
So people are being forced to work at Walmart? That is what you are saying. They can take the job at Walmart or work somewhere else. They are not being forced to work in some government run factory, Comrade. That is the essence of freedom.
But maybe you oppose the Russian way? Maybe the Germans and their socialist worldview is more to you liking? Yes, the answer is work camps. I saw a few in Germany when I lived there. They had a very secure entryway with a sign which stated “Arbeit macht Frei”. Work makes you free. What a utopian life! No need to worry about anything. All we be provided, assuming you work hard.-
Quote from radmike
So people are being forced to work at Walmart? That is what you are saying. They can take the job at Walmart or work somewhere else. They are not being forced to work in some government run factory, Comrade. That is the essence of freedom.
But maybe you oppose the Russian way? Maybe the Germans and their socialist worldview is more to you liking? Yes, the answer is work camps. I saw a few in Germany when I lived there. They had a very secure entryway with a sign which stated “Arbeit macht Frei”. Work makes you free. What a utopian life! No need to worry about anything. All we be provided, assuming you work hard.
Oh my God, what planet are you on?
They work there because they HAVE TO WORK to put food on the table and that’s the best thing they can find. Are you insane?
And what exactly do you mean by “somewhere else”? Are you actually suggesting there is a shortage of more educated workers in better paying jobs if only those Walmart scavengers would wake up and learn a skill that’s worth more than minimum wage? I hope to God you’re not suggesting that most of them turned down better paying jobs so that they can collect the poverty income differential.
Again, where are those better paying jobs that you’re implying are out there waiting to be filled. Please, by all means, direct the 6.7ish% of Americans who are unemployed out there to all those amazing jobs that pay more than Walmart. I’m sure SOME of them must have a high school diploma. In fact I’m guessing a lot of them have college degrees.
Maybe Faux knows where all those jobs are that would be filled if only more Americans were better edumacated? Oh that’s right, Faux is trying to clean up their act now that the sap in yesterday’s tree is running out.
PLEASE enlighten us.
-
Please don’t. So far mike has never said anything of intelligence.
-
Conservatives support a minimum wage in Britain.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/the-minimum-wage-is-set-to-rise-in-britain-and-conservatives-are-all-for-it/2014/01/26/b944832e-8531-11e3-8099-9181471f7aaf_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…181471f7aaf_story.html[/link]the nations top economic official known as the austerity chancellor for his cheerless calls to cut budgets and benefits startled the political establishment by declaring that it is time to spread the wealth.
The announcement reflected the unusual consensus developing in Britain over how to distribute the spoils of the economic recovery. It also highlighted a stark contrast with the United States.
The United States and Britain are emerging from the wreckage of the Great Recession on parallel trajectories. In both countries, unemployment is falling even as wages continue to stagnate and the gaps between rich and poor widen.
I think Britain can afford a higher minimum wage, [link=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25766558#story_continues_2]Osborne told the BBC[/link]. We have worked hard to get to this point, and we can start to enjoy the fruits of all that hard work.
-
If there are no jobs available maybe you should ask Obama about all of those shovel ready jobs he had lined up. Maybe you shouldn’t raise taxes and increase regulations on people like me who hire others? Every dollar I send to DC for those two sinkholes is one less dollar I have to spend on the economy or for hiring. Simple logic, but too complex for you.
-
Quote from radmike
If there are no jobs available maybe you should ask Obama about all of those shovel ready jobs he had lined up. Maybe you shouldn’t raise taxes and increase regulations on people like me who hire others? Every dollar I send to DC for those two sinkholes is one less dollar I have to spend on the economy or for hiring. Simple logic, but too complex for you.
Oh, so now it’s “[b][i][u]IF[/u][/i][/b] there are no jobs available…”, huh?
There you go with your ridiculous trolling again. You just said if they don’t want that job at Walmart they should have turned it down and taken a job “somewhere else” and so I asked you a DIRECT question to point out where all those other jobs are.
Now you simply deflect AGAIN! Or is it possible for you to focus on one point long enough to actually acknowledge [i]to [u]yourself[/u][/i] how ignorant you really are about the world around you now that the rest of us already can see that quite clearly?
Next you’ll be echoing fw’s ignorance that EVERYONE can graduate high school by [i]”just showing up”…[/i]
And you know NOTHING about hiring people. If you need to hire someone it means you’re business is booming. If it’s not booming then you won’t need to hire someone. A few percent drop in taxes is not going to prompt you to hire anyone. All it’s going to do is let you sock away a few more percent of net. Who do you think you’re fooling?
-
Quote from radmike
If there are no jobs available maybe you should ask Obama about all of those shovel ready jobs he had lined up. Maybe you shouldn’t raise taxes and increase regulations on people like me who hire others? Every dollar I send to DC for those two sinkholes is one less dollar I have to spend on the economy or for hiring. Simple logic, but too complex for you.
You’re not sending enough apparently.
simple logic.-
You are completely clueless. How much do you pay your employees? Probably not enough if they have to listen to your tripe.
How much do you pay them? Minimum wage? You hater. What about the pizza delivery guy or the boy who mows your lawn? How much do you pay them? Why not pay them $100 per hour? Do they do work worth $100 per hour? Why not $200 per hour? Why do you hate the poor and your employees so much? Why?
sounds of crickets chirping. -
Socialists have a shallow understanding of finances. Just look at what the socialist Hollande has done to the French economy. There has been a massive exodus of capital from France since he implemented his punitive taxes on the wealthy. Now France lags badly in the European economic recovery.
Margaret Thatcher was right. The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money. -
Quote from radmike
You are completely clueless. How much do you pay your employees? Probably not enough if they have to listen to your tripe.
How much do you pay them? Minimum wage? You hater. What about the pizza delivery guy or the boy who mows your lawn? How much do you pay them? Why not pay them $100 per hour? Do they do work worth $100 per hour? Why not $200 per hour? Why do you hate the poor and your employees so much? Why?
sounds of crickets chirping.I can’t answer for Frumious, but I never paid anyone minimum wage, EVER, not even close, regardless of how menial their job was. As a matter of fact, I’ve always paid at least TWICE minimum wage, and THAT was a “probational” rate for the first 90 days on the job, even if it was someone hired as a “filing clerk” who barely knew the alphabet. My philosophy is that if I couldn’t come up with a business idea that would allow me to pay people like that, then the idea wasn’t worth running a business for in the first place. I don’t believe in paying the bare minimum so that I can keep most of the profit. I believe in a solid business model, paying everyone well, building loyalty, establishing a quality base, and going long. I don’t believe in establishing an exit strategy before my first day on the job.
Sorry to disappoint you, but I don’t think we are the cheap bastids you desperately want us to be.
Now go stick it up your fat, tight…nose.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
You are the ones advocating giving up freedom for more government control. I am pointing out what can happen.
-
But you are unwilling to pay $100 per hour for the lawn boy?
Good luck trying to run a McDonalds or other fast food joint. Simple economics. Minimum wage is a starting wage. Not a career wage.
I don’t pay my x-ray techs minimum wage either. They have some training and the market forces in area would not support minimum wage for their skill set. Now, If I hire someone to vacuum the floor or paint the walls then I pay the market rate. MARKET RATE. Not some Livable Wage BS that some government think tank dreams up.
And I highly doubt your statement about how much you pay people. Are you trying to convince me that if the plumber gave you an estimate for work to be done at your house then you would pay him twice the quote for labor? Just to be a good liberal? Sorry, calling BS on that one.-
Quote from radmike
But you are unwilling to pay $100 per hour for the lawn boy?
Good luck trying to run a McDonalds or other fast food joint. Simple economics. Minimum wage is a starting wage. Not a career wage.
Two problems here –
First- your reductio ad absurdum argument of $100 for a lawn boy is a common trope brought out to argue against the minimum wage. Of course there is a level at which an absurdly high minimum wage would have detrimental economic effects. However, the vast majority of economist believe that a significant (not to $100/hr but significant %age) raise of the minimum would have little if any detrimental effect on employment which would be well outweighed by the increased spending power of the growing numbers of people working in minimum wage jobs.
Which brings me to problem #2 with your post. Minimum [i]is[/i] more and more commonly a career wage for a large segment of the US population. The average fast food worker is not a pimply faced 16 year old. It is a 28 year old trying to raise a family. The notion that working in mimum wage is just something that people do for a very short period until something better comes along is not the case.-
Well to use the common logic in DC, maybe we should print more money so that we can pay $100 per hour?
What happens to prices at fast food joints when you raise the minimum wage to let’s say $15? Nothing? The poor, who frequent those establishments, now have to pay more. Is that your goal? Make it harder for the poor to eat? Force more people onto the government dole? Not as compassionate as you pretend to be.
Why is a 28 year old with a family trying to make ends meet with an entry level burger flipping job? Maybe the Obama economy and shovel ready jobs aren’t what they told us?
I understand exceptions. I understand short-term emergencies. But piss-poor planning on their part does not constitute the need to raise the minimum wage and PRICES for everyone else, with the resultant consequences.-
When the minimum wage is raised to $15 there will be [i]some[/i] increase in prices passed through to the consumer. But you make it sound as if the entirety of the money now being paid in wages to lower income workers will be inflationary in the same manner as money printing. That is not the case.
Corporations will not be able to pass through the enitre cost to the consumer and, more importantly, the wage earner will not have the entirety of his newly increased income taken up by price increases, only a portion of it. The low income wage earner is thus significantly better off.
Prices might increase say 3% at McDonalds but the worker has 30% more in their paycheck.
The federal minimum wage has lost 30% of its purchasing power in the last 40 years. If the minimum wage[b] [/b]had kept pace with the cost of living since the early ’70, it would now equal $10-$11/ hr. It’s not as if a wage at that historical level had a big detrimental effect on the economy.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/04/economists-agree-raising-the-minimum-wage-reduces-poverty/]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/01/04/economists-agree-raising-the-minimum-wage-reduces-poverty/[/link]
Overall, raising the minimum wage helps to fight poverty.
Thats the conclusion of a major new paper by Dube, titled [link=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15038936/Dube_MinimumWagesFamilyIncomes.pdf]Minimum Wages and the Distribution of Family Incomes.[/link]
Lets first highlight the major results. Dube uses the latest in minimum-wage statistics and finds a negative relationship between the minimum wage and poverty. Specifically, raising the minimum wage 10 percent (say from $7.25 to near $8) would reduce the number of people living in poverty 2.4 percent. (For those who thrive on jargon, the minimum wage has an elasticity of -0.24 when it comes to poverty reduction.)
Using this as an estimate, raising the minimum wage to $10.10 an hour, as many Democrats are proposing in 2014, would reduce the number of people living in poverty by 4.6 million. It would also boost the incomes of those at the 10th percentile by $1,700. Thats a significant increase in the quality of life for our worst off that doesnt require the government to tax and spend a single additional dollar. And, given that this policy is self-enforcing with virtually no administrative costs while challenging the employers market power, it is a powerful complement to the rest of the policies the government uses to boost the living standards of the worst off, including the Earned Income Tax Credit, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.
…
What should people take away from this? The first is that there are significant benefits, whatever the costs. If you look at the economist James Tobin in 1996, for instance, he [link=http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3649]argues[/link] that the minimum wage always had to be recognized as having good income consequences.I thought in this instance those advantages outweighed the small loss of jobs. Since then theres been [link=http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/min-wage-2013-02.pdf]substantially more work done[/link] arguing that the loss of jobs is smaller or nonexistent, and now we know that the advantages are even better, especially when it comes to boosting incomes of the poorest and reducing extreme poverty.
As many economists have [link=http://www.federalreserve.gov/Pubs/FEDS/2010/201060/201060pap.pdf]argued[/link], the minimum wage substantially held up the lower tail of the U.S. earnings distribution through the late 1970s, but this effect stopped as the real value of the minimum wage fell in subsequent decades. This gives us an empirical handle on how the minimum wage would help deal with both insufficient low-end wages and inequality, and the results are striking.
-
-
-
Quote from radmike
But you are unwilling to pay $100 per hour for the lawn boy?
Good luck trying to run a McDonalds or other fast food joint. Simple economics. Minimum wage is a starting wage. Not a career wage.
I don’t pay my x-ray techs minimum wage either. They have some training and the market forces in area would not support minimum wage for their skill set. Now, If I hire someone to vacuum the floor or paint the walls then I pay the market rate. MARKET RATE. Not some Livable Wage BS that some government think tank dreams up.
And I highly doubt your statement about how much you pay people. Are you trying to convince me that if the plumber gave you an estimate for work to be done at your house then you would pay him twice the quote for labor? Just to be a good liberal? Sorry, calling BS on that one.radmike it’s a very simple concept: If McDonald’s or Walmart can’t run a business by paying people a human wage, then they have a faulty business model. The notion that some business models aren’t worthy is simply a difficult concept for you.
Next you’ll be crying that kids should be able to work drill press or pour steel at the age of 12 so they can rack up some early vocational skills, or some such BS.
-
Look at this from the employer’s point of view. In order to maintain profitability, the response to these proposed minimum wage requirements will be massive layoffs and price increases, hence more unemployment. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
If the Democrats and Obama hadn’t choked off job growth with their tax and regulatory policies, people would not be having to support their families with what traditionally have been entry level jobs. No wonder teen unemployment is so high.-
I love the “HUMAN WAGE” quote. Try to pull at heartstrings. Never is it defined with an actual number. Just like the “FAIR SHAR” BS.
So Walmart and McDonalds need to double their payroll costs in order to make you happy? While pricing products and services out of reach for the consuming public.-
the song Royals by Lorde:” and we will never be royal, it don’t run in our blood, that kind of lux just ain’t for us …we crave a different kind of buzz
-
Quote from radmike
So Walmart and McDonalds need to double their payroll costs in order to [u][i][b]make you happy[/b][/i][/u]? While pricing products and services out of reach for the consuming public.
Sorry to break the news to you, radmike, but this is NOT about me, and you’re a real louse trying to spin it into that.
First of all, considering the profits McDonald’s (or Walmart, or most other minimum wage houses) racks up, there is no reason for them to raise the prices for consumers unless they insist on being greedy bastids they were in the past. Well guess what?…I’m guessing they will NOT raise their prices, and that’s because they know consumers will flock to Wendy’s or Burger King or any other chain that has enough business savvy to keep their prices as they were, and they not only will stay in business, but will buy out all the boarded-up McDonald’s that you seem so convinced we’ll see, and they will hire back the McD’s workers to help them expand their own empire.Costco pays their people very well and yet has a business model that allows them to undercut virtually all of their competition. THAT is the heart of the free enterprise system. But you seem to have the same kind of socialist/communist spin I’m hearing from a few others here that claims companies should be entitled to earn large profits by keeping payroll down to a bare minimum. That’s not America. America is COMPETITION, and survival of the fittest, and Costco shows very clearly how that works, contrary to your twisted view of this country.
And I LOVE the way you make this about what [i][u][b]I[/b][/u][/i] want. It says volumes about the way you see the world. You obviously are a [i]”what’s in it for me”[/i] guy with a vision that goes about as far as your nose. Here’s another news flash: Some people actually care about [u]OTHERS[/u] in society. They have empathy. They don’t like seeing [u]OTHER[/u] people out of work, starving on the street, depriving [u]their[/u] kids of a childhood.
But your selfish ignorance prevents you from participating in the human experiment. You see the universe as being about YOU, and the only things you want to have happen, naturally, are things that make YOU happy, and to hell with everyone else.
You live a pathetic existence, but I hope you can find happiness, however it is that you define it, without causing too much harm to other people.
-
Quote from radmike
I love the “HUMAN WAGE” quote. Try to pull at heartstrings. Never is it defined with an actual number. Just like the “FAIR SHAR” BS.
So Walmart and McDonalds need to double their payroll costs in order to make you happy? While pricing products and services out of reach for the consuming public.This is similar to the argument I had in the past with a mostly absent right wing poster who was worried that the incandescent bulb law would price electric lighting out of the reach of those at the lower end of the economic scale. All hot air & misdirection horse excrement.
As if Walmart could not afford to increase the pay of the “associates,” the ones who they help to gain government assistance, the ones who Walmart does fund raisers for so they can have Thanksgiving & X-mas dinners. No, Walmart could not afford to give turkeys away for X-mas or Thanksgiving to their own “associates,” they ask other “associates” to donate $$$ so their fellow “associates” can have a family dinner for the Holidays.
Is that not an explicit recognition that they are underpaying their “associates?” Is that not corporate welfare? -
The working poor, Walmart “associates.”
[link=http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-employee-food-drive-2013-11]http://www.businessinside…yee-food-drive-2013-11[/link]
Yesterday, it was revealed that employees at a Cleveland Wal-Mart are holding [link=http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-asks-customers-to-donate-food-2013-11]a holiday food drive for other Wal-Mart employees[/link].
This situation says everything about what’s wrong with the U.S. economy right now.
[b]Wal-Mart is one of the richest companies in the world.[/b]
[b]Wal-Mart has a market value of $260 billion and [i][u]made $17 billion in profit last year.[/u][/i][/b]
But Wal-Mart does not pay its employees enough to buy food for the holidays.
-
slight back track
-
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
Look at this from the employer’s point of view. In order to maintain profitability, the response to these proposed minimum wage requirements will be massive layoffs and price increases, hence more unemployment. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
Except that there is good data that shows that an increase of the minimum wage has little if any effect on the job market.
The EPI now has over 600 PhD economists signatory to their letter on the effect of a minimum wage increase.
July will mark five years since the federal minimum wage was last raised. We urge you to act now and enact a three-step raise of 95 cents a year for three yearswhich would mean a minimum wage of $10.10 by 2016and then index it to protect against inflation.
This policy would directly provide higher wages for close to 17 million workers by 2016. Furthermore, another 11 million workers whose wages are just above the new minimum would likely see a wage increase through spillover effects, as employers adjust their internal wage ladders. The vast majority of employees who would benefit are adults in working families, disproportionately women, who work at least 20 hours a week and depend on these earnings to make ends meet. At a time when persistent high unemployment is putting enormous downward pressure on wages, such a minimum wage increase would provide a much-needed boost to the earnings of low-wage workers.
[b]In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. [/b]Research suggests that a minimum wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth and providing some help on the jobs front.
So don’t worry about those “massive layoffs” … they won’t happen.-
Quote from Dergon
“Except that there is good data that shows that an increase of the minimum wage has little if any effect on the job market.
The EPI now has over 600 PhD economists signatory to their letter on the effect of a minimum wage increase. ..
So don’t worry about those “massive layoffs” … they won’t happen. ”
So Dergon, is this like the AGW “settled science.”?
-
Quote from aldadoc
Quote from Dergon
“Except that there is good data that shows that an increase of the minimum wage has little if any effect on the job market.
The EPI now has over 600 PhD economists signatory to their letter on the effect of a minimum wage increase. ..
So don’t worry about those “massive layoffs” … they won’t happen. ”
So Dergon, is this like the AGW “settled science.”?
Kudos to you Alda for being just about the only sane moderate on the off-topics post. The off-topic threads have become permeated with nearly invariant left-wing thought, from naivete that liberalism can work once repackaged, or just verboten statists or socialists. Just look at the threads recent, a volley of similar and unreflective rhetoric forgetting or fudging the truth about the failed social states from the dustbin of history. This is why so many moderates have disappeared the off-topic forum altogether.
Look at the current numbers..states with the lowest unemployment have no state tax (Texas-6.2%//Fl-6.7%) vs. state or municipalities with the highest tax burden (California-8.7%//NYC-8.9). Even in the Obama economy, with everything else being dreadfully equal, this just stands out. Obama stands up there with his low 40% approval, while his more moderate predecessors, Reagan and Clinton, who won elections by cutting across all demographics and not concentrated identity politics, were near or at 60% approval. The identity politics of the hood or group-think dont care if the emperor doesnt have clothes and sprays on the audience.
When obama tomorrow night in the SOTU address starts talking up the cynical the Ploffe–Podesta spin-doctor strategy of income inequality/class envy, any bets he doest mention the biggest factors creating wealth inequality?: 1) poor family dynamics weakened by single-headed households with cultures that dont emphasize education or self-sacrifice. And 2), the politically tolerated failures of unionized secondary school educators who get fired from their employment at perhaps a rate 1/100,000th of a physician? Dont hold your breath.
BTW, why does mayor D of NYC and other liberals doubt or straight out despise charter schools? Do they fear the academic achievement separation of many successful city kids, most of whom are minority, from the scholastically incapable? It seems like DeBlasio doesn’t want successful students to stand out, but instead to equalize the outcomes.-
moderate/?????????????????????
and will never be RoYals…Quote from RVU
Quote from aldadoc
Quote from Dergon
“Except that there is good data that shows that an increase of the minimum wage has little if any effect on the job market.
The EPI now has over 600 PhD economists signatory to their letter on the effect of a minimum wage increase. ..
So don’t worry about those “massive layoffs” … they won’t happen. ”
So Dergon, is this like the AGW “settled science.”?
Kudos to you Alda for being just about the [b]only sane moderate[/b][/style][/style] on the off-topics post. The off-topic threads have become permeated with nearly invariant left-wing thought, from naivete that liberalism can work once repackaged, or just verboten statists or socialists. Just look at the threads recent, a volley of similar and unreflective rhetoric forgetting or fudging the truth about the failed social states from the dustbin of history. This is why so many moderates have disappeared the off-topic forum altogether.
Look at the current numbers..states with the lowest unemployment have no state tax (Texas-6.2%//Fl-6.7%) vs. state or municipalities with the highest tax burden (California-8.7%//NYC-8.9). Even in the Obama economy, with everything else being dreadfully equal, this just stands out. Obama stands up there with his low 40% approval, while his more moderate predecessors, Reagan and Clinton, who won elections by cutting across all demographics and not concentrated identity politics, were near or at 60% approval. The identity politics of the hood or group-think dont care if the emperor doesnt have clothes and sprays on the audience.
When obama tomorrow night in the SOTU address starts talking up the cynical the Ploffe–Podesta spin-doctor strategy of income inequality/class envy, any bets he doest mention the biggest factors creating wealth inequality?: 1) poor family dynamics weakened by single-headed households with cultures that dont emphasize education or self-sacrifice. And 2), the politically tolerated failures of unionized secondary school educators who get fired from their employment at perhaps a rate 1/100,000th of a physician? Dont hold your breath.
BTW, why does mayor D of NYC and other liberals doubt or straight out despise charter schools? Do they fear the academic achievement separation of many successful city kids, most of whom are minority, from the scholastically incapable? It seems like DeBlasio doesn’t want successful students to stand out, but instead to equalize the outcomes.
-
Quote from RVU
Quote from aldadoc
Quote from Dergon
“Except that there is good data that shows that an increase of the minimum wage has little if any effect on the job market.
The EPI now has over 600 PhD economists signatory to their letter on the effect of a minimum wage increase. ..
So don’t worry about those “massive layoffs” … they won’t happen. ”
So Dergon, is this like the AGW “settled science.”?Kudos to you Alda for being just about the only sane moderate on the off-topics post. The off-topic threads have become permeated with nearly invariant left-wing thought, from naivete that liberalism can work once repackaged, or just verboten statists or socialists. Just look at the threads recent, a volley of similar and unreflective rhetoric forgetting or fudging the truth about the failed social states from the dustbin of history. This is why so many moderates have disappeared the off-topic forum altogether.
Look at the current numbers..states with the lowest unemployment have no state tax (Texas-6.2%//Fl-6.7%) vs. state or municipalities with the highest tax burden (California-8.7%//NYC-8.9). Even in the Obama economy, with everything else being dreadfully equal, this just stands out. Obama stands up there with his low 40% approval, while his more moderate predecessors, Reagan and Clinton, who won elections by cutting across all demographics and not concentrated identity politics, were near or at 60% approval. The identity politics of the hood or group-think dont care if the emperor doesnt have clothes and sprays on the audience.
When obama tomorrow night in the SOTU address starts talking up the cynical the Ploffe–Podesta spin-doctor strategy of income inequality/class envy, any bets he doest mention the biggest factors creating wealth inequality?: 1) poor family dynamics weakened by single-headed households with cultures that dont emphasize education or self-sacrifice. And 2), the politically tolerated failures of unionized secondary school educators who get fired from their employment at perhaps a rate 1/100,000th of a physician? Dont hold your breath.
BTW, why does mayor D of NYC and other liberals doubt or straight out despise charter schools? Do they fear the academic achievement separation of many successful city kids, most of whom are minority, from the scholastically incapable? It seems like DeBlasio doesn’t want successful students to stand out, but instead to equalize the outcomes.
[i]Kudos?[/i]
[i]Moderate?[/i]
Oh please, more like the same old cherry-picking ideological anecdotes, pure and simple.
You want to talk about NY and CA as having a high state tax and high unemployment? Well VT, MN, and IA also have among the highest state taxes too, but are among the LOWEST in unemployment.
You want to talk about TX and FL having low state tax and low unemployement? Well NV and AK have even LOWER total state taxes than TX and FL, and yet they among the HIGHEST for unemployment!
In truth you are EXTREMELY DISINGENUOUS by picking those examples when there actually is ZERO CORRELATION between state tax and unemployment rate across the country.
Why would you make such a statement when a 3 minute search shows it is clearly incorrect?
[link]http://civicanalytics.com/taxing-analysis[/link]
[link=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_unemployment_rate]http://en.wikipedia.org/w…s_by_unemployment_rate[/link]
Do you just make stuff up because it makes you feel good?
Do you even care at all about what’s going on in the real world?
-
The best example of the power and salutary effects of lowering taxes and decreasing regulatory burden is Wisconsin. Under the sage and dogged guidance of a conservative GOP governor, the state of Wisconsin has turned a projected $1B deficit into a $3B surplus. Gov. Walker is returning the surplus to the tax payers.
This is an example why states are the best laboratories of economic policy. Walker showed us the way. The Milton Friedman way. There is a reason why people are fleeing out of California, Illinois and New York into states like Texas, Florida and now Wisconsin.
Socialism is the last recluse of the scoundrels. Give it up, “progressives”. You are destroying the country. It is clear to all but the leftist ideologues that socialist policies failed again under Obama. Why Obama is doubling up on socialism, class warfare and populist welfare state, I can’t understand.
-
Quote from aldadoc
The best example of the power and salutary effects of lowering taxes and decreasing regulatory burden is Wisconsin. Under the sage and dogged guidance of a conservative GOP governor, the state of Wisconsin has turned a projected $1B deficit into a $3B surplus. Gov. Walker is returning the surplus to the tax payers.
This is an example why states are the best laboratories of economic policy. Walker showed us the way. The Milton Friedman way. There is a reason why people are fleeing out of California, Illinois and New York into states like Texas, Florida and now Wisconsin.
Socialism is the last recluse of the scoundrels. Give it up, “progressives”. You are destroying the country. It is clear to all but the leftist ideologues that socialist policies failed again under Obama. Why Obama is doubling up on socialism, class warfare and populist welfare state, I can’t understand.
OK, so you are tacitly and obviously confirming that the implication in the previous post, that lower state taxes is correlated with lower unemployment, is indeed completely bogus. Just checking on that. Thanks for verifying that it was a completely cherry-picked ideological post with no basis in reality, that’s all.
-
Lux redux. You can take those blinders off anytime now. Accept defeat now and wait another 25 years for the next wave of progressivism. Like a bad dream, It always returns.
-
Quote from aldadoc
Lux redux. You can take those blinders off anytime now. Accept defeat now and wait another 25 years for the next wave of progressivism. Like a bad dream, It always returns.
What are you mumbling about now?!
I simply pointed out the FACT that RVU is incorrect in trying to fool anyone into thinking there is a correlation between state taxes and unemployment based on his anecdotal cherry-picking. THERE IS NO CORRELATION. The data is VERY clear on that.
Or are you simply denying it because you prefer not to believe it?
-
[link=http://www.npr.org/2014/01/29/268404305/income-inequality-as-seen-from-two-angles]http://www.npr.org/2014/0…s-seen-from-two-angles[/link]
[h1]Income Inequality, As Seen From Two Angles[/h1] A key theme of President Obama’s State of the Union was income inequality. For two different perspectives on the matter, Robert Siegel talks with Paul Krugman and Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Krugman is a columnist for [i]The New York Times[/i] and a professor of Economics and International Affairs at Princeton University. Holtz-Eakin is the president of the American Action Forum, a center-right policy institute. He also served as the chief economist of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush.
An interesting (and pleasently civil) discussion from the right and the left on tonight’s NPR.
Just listen to it 🙂
-
Yes, actually a civil AND surprisingly factual discussions further surprising was the degree of agreement about the facts, something missing in the discussions from right wing media and politicians.
Waiting to hear now how Holz-Eakin is a Commie and RINO.
-
Yes, actually a civil AND surprisingly factual discussions further surprising was the degree of agreement about the facts, something missing in the discussions from [b]LEFT[/b] wing media and politicians.
troll -
Ah yes the Wisconsin miracle…lagging behind the progressive state of Minnesota
Wisconsin surplus is not due to Walker’s policies but the national recovery
[link=http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/jan/27/state-democratic-party-wisconsin/wisconsin-democratic-party-says-state-budget-surpl/]http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2014/jan/27/state-democratic-party-wisconsin/wisconsin-democratic-party-says-state-budget-surpl/[/link]
“But his overall plan would leave the state in worse financial shape in the long term. Walker said his plan would add perhaps $100 million to the $725 million shortfall projected for the next two-year budget by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau” Note: Why is there a projected shortfall? Isn’t the conservative thing to do to use increased revenue to pay down the debt?Read more from Journal Sentinel: [link=http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/headlines/democrats-say-surprlus-should-fill-budget-holes-before-tax-cuts-b99188731z1-241324921.html#ixzz2riTBkAC8]http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/headlines/democrats-say-surprlus-should-fill-budget-holes-before-tax-cuts-b99188731z1-241324921.html#ixzz2riTBkAC8[/link]
Bottom 5 in job growth and declining private sector wages
[link=http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/regional-economy/indexes/leading/2013/LeadingIndexes0413.pdf]http://www.philadelphiafed.org/research-and-data/regional-economy/indexes/leading/2013/LeadingIndexes0413.pdf[/link]
Good news your wages declined by 2%, but you might get a $150 tax refund to offset it.
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
Quote from Dergon
“Except that there is good data that shows that an increase of the minimum wage has little if any effect on the job market.
The EPI now has over 600 PhD economists signatory to their letter on the effect of a minimum wage increase. ..
So don’t worry about those “massive layoffs” … they won’t happen. ”
So Dergon, is this like the AGW “settled science.”?
Weren’t they the same ones who signed back with Clinton’s tax increases in the early 1990’s also predicting massive layoffs and a collapsing economy due to the increases?
Except that it didn’t happen. The economy picked up, in fact.
Weren’t they the same ones who signed saying Bush’s tax reductions would stimulate the economy to the point of surpluses “as far as the eye can see?”
Except Bush gave us more deficits as he gave us the credit card economy.
“Doom and gloom” Republicans. Who said that? Sounds like Reagan. -
Quote from aldadoc
Quote from Dergon
“Except that there is good data that shows that an increase of the minimum wage has little if any effect on the job market.
The EPI now has over 600 PhD economists signatory to their letter on the effect of a minimum wage increase. ..
So don’t worry about those “massive layoffs” … they won’t happen. ”
So Dergon, is this like the AGW “settled science.”?
Strikingly similar actually, yes.
Both are issues in which a solid majority of trained professional opinions and academic research supports one side while the opposition view is primarily supported/funded by groups who have a vested interested in fostering a false notion of controversy over the matter so as to maintain inaction and the status quo. (Although I would grant that the economic “science” is less one-sided in the minimum wage argument than it is for global warming)
-
-
-
-
-
-
[i]”Cadillac in our [u]dreams[/u]”[/i]… but we really don’t [u]need[/u] no stinking Cadillac!
A McDonald’s and Walmart worker will be happy having 4 wheels, gas in the tank, and food on the table.
-
Lorde: and I’m not proud of my address in the torn uptown…no post code envy…and we will never be ROYALs, it don’t run in our blood…that kinda lux just ain’t for us… we crave a different type of buzz…we count our dollars on the train/ we didn’t come from money..and we will never be royals
what a great anti class/caste system songQuote from Lux
[i]”Cadillac in our [u]dreams[/u]”[/i]… but we really don’t [u]need[/u] no stinking Cadillac!
A McDonald’s and Walmart worker will be happy having 4 wheels, gas in the tank, and food on the table.
-
-
Quote from aldadoc
Quote from Dergon
“Except that there is good data that shows that an increase of the minimum wage has little if any effect on the job market.
The EPI now has over 600 PhD economists signatory to their letter on the effect of a minimum wage increase. ..
So don’t worry about those “massive layoffs” … they won’t happen. ”
So Dergon, is this like the AGW “settled science.”?Well, at least Dergon is pointing to a large authoritative support of that theory.
What have YOU got to show for an alternate view besides maybe the opinion of a couple high paid heads on Faux?
-
NRP is left wing, so I hear. Where you get civil discussions that actually present contrasting ideas.
BORING!
Stay with Fox, Mike. The WWE of news. Not authentic but entertaining fiction.
-
We can go through the list of partisan newscasters and idiot left-wing politicians AGAIN, if you like.
[image]http://www.auntminnie.com/Forum/webkit-fake-url:/0F854D50-C0E5-4510-8CF2-60C1CEB1737C/url.jpg[/image]-
[link=http://hypervocal.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/AP880608010.jpg]http://hypervocal.com/wp-…013/02/AP880608010.jpg[/link]
-
Brother Al. That pic is priceless!!!!
-
Quote from Ben Casey
Brother Al. That pic is priceless!!!!
So is your bigotry, Brother Ben.
-
Race card? So soon?
[image]http://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/al-sharpton-244×300.jpg[/image]-
LOOK! SQUIRREL!
Pavlov would be impressed.-
Yes, actually a civil AND surprisingly factual discussions further surprising was the degree of agreement about the facts, something missing in the discussions from [b]LEFT[/b] wing media and politicians
[link=http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/msnbc-apologizes-tweet-taunting-conservatives-article-1.1596432]http://www.nydailynews.co…ives-article-1.1596432[/link]
-
-
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from Ben Casey
Brother Al. That pic is priceless!!!!
So is your bigotry, Brother Ben.
Can’t laugh at funny pictures from the past? That’s bigotry?
I am able to laugh at pictures of myself and family from years ago.
I get the feeling that you are assuming I’m a white guy. Be careful what you assume.
Is it bigotry if I laugh at a pic of VP Biden looking like an idiot?
Or is it bigotry only if the person is of color.
I would suggest that the bigot is the person who views everything in black or white.
Take a look in the mirror.
The brother Al pic is priceless because of how times and looks have changed.
Not sure how that is bigotry.-
That is their modus operandi.
Try to silence opposition using slurs and suggestions of intolerance.
Try to marginalize the person so the ideas will be ignored.
-
Quote from Ben Casey
Quote from Lux
Quote from Ben Casey
Brother Al. That pic is priceless!!!!
So is your bigotry, Brother Ben.
Can’t laugh at funny pictures from the past? That’s bigotry?
I am able to laugh at pictures of myself and family from years ago.
I get the feeling that you are assuming I’m a white guy. Be careful what you assume.
Is it bigotry if I laugh at a pic of VP Biden looking like an idiot?
Or is it bigotry only if the person is of color.
I would suggest that the bigot is the person who views everything in black or white.
Take a look in the mirror.
The brother Al pic is priceless because of how times and looks have changed.
Not sure how that is bigotry.Well Ben, my first clue was when a picture of him in front of a church, dressed very neatly, apparently being very respectful and well-behaved, is somehow “priceless” to you.
The second clue is that in the Baptist religion only [u]pastors[/u] are referred to as “Brother” but only verbally and not in the written form, and not [u]ministers[/u] like The Reverend Sharpton, and I am highly doubting that he is your biological “brother”, so what “brother” might you be referring to?
-
hehe
Quote from Lux
Quote from Ben Casey
Quote from Lux
Quote from Ben Casey
Brother Al. That pic is priceless!!!!
So is your bigotry, Brother Ben.
Can’t laugh at funny pictures from the past? That’s bigotry?
I am able to laugh at pictures of myself and family from years ago.
I get the feeling that you are assuming I’m a white guy. Be careful what you assume.
Is it bigotry if I laugh at a pic of VP Biden looking like an idiot?
Or is it bigotry only if the person is of color.
I would suggest that the bigot is the person who views everything in black or white.
Take a look in the mirror.
The brother Al pic is priceless because of how times and looks have changed.
Not sure how that is bigotry.Well Ben, my first clue was when a picture of him in front of a church, dressed very neatly, apparently being very respectful and well-behaved, is somehow “priceless” to you.
The second clue is that in the Baptist religion only [u]pastors[/u] are referred to as “Brother” but only verbally and not in the written form, and not [u]ministers[/u] like The Reverend Sharpton, and I am highly doubting that he is your biological “brother”, so what “brother” might you be referring to?
-
Interesting article in Commentary from AEI President, Arthur Brooks about the poor and the attitude from the right about them. Except I feel it will fall on deaf ears. It’s been tried before, the former President was elected partly based on Compassionate Conservatism which ended up being little more than a bad joke.
[link=http://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/be-open-handed-toward-your-brothers-1/]http://www.commentarymaga…oward-your-brothers-1/[/link]
[blockquote] [i] [/i]
[/blockquote][blockquote] [i]There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be open-handed toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.[/i]
[/blockquote] Deuteronomy 15:11
Since January 2009, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has more than doubled. Last year brought the largest annual increase in the S&P 500 since the late 1990s. And the vast bulk of this sustained market surge has accrued to the extremely wealthy. According to New York University economist Edward Wolff, the top 10 percent of earners own 81 percent of stocks and mutual funds, 95 percent of financial securities, 92 percent of business equity, and 80 percent of non-home real estate. So it comes as little surprise that nearly all the real income growth that President Obamas recovery has generated would flow to the wealthiest Americans. According to University of California, Berkeley, economist Emmanuel Saez, 95 percent of all recovery gains have accrued to the much-vilified top 1 percent.
At the same time, the poor have become even more desperate. The number of Americans receiving aid through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (known as food stamps) has increased by almost 50 percent since January 2009, from 32.2 million to 47.7 million. One in six citizens in the richest country in the world now rely on food aid from their government.
And what has happened to income inequality? A central theme in each of the presidents campaigns, this is one metric by which committed egalitarian liberals might judge this administration. Economists measure inequality with the Gini coefficient, a number from 0 to 1. Zero denotes complete equality, and 1 would be complete inequality, with all income possessed by one person. Since January 2009, the Gini coefficient has moved from 0.47 to 0.48.
In sum, the administrations ostensibly pro-poor, tough-on-the-wealthy agenda has led us toward a new American Gilded Age. Our putatively progressive president has inadvertently executed a plutocratic tour de force.
But the administrations failure to achieve the presidents stated goals is nothing for his opponents to celebrate. Few conservatives begrudge the wealthy their gains, and many are skeptical that income inequality is meaningful in and of itself. But the fact that many Americans continue to suffer years after the technical end of the Great Recession should offend any sense of plain justice.
But then the poor are nothing more than lazy leeches anyway who just need more “tough love” to get them motivated, Romney’s central platform about the 47%
No, Compassionate Conservatism is a zombie if it ever lived at all.
-
This is a fairly long read, but high quality and smart. Some experts that I like placed below.
[link=http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/the-conservative-myth-of-a-social-safety-net-built-on-charity/284552/]http://www.theatlantic.co…ilt-on-charity/284552/[/link]
[b]The Conservative Myth of a Social Safety Net Built on Charity[/b] [i] The right yearns for an era when churches and local organizations took care of society’s weakestan era that never existed and can’t exist today. [/i]
Ideology is as much about understanding the past as shaping the future. And conservatives tell themselves a story, a fairy tale really, about the past, about the way the world was and can be again under Republican policies. This story is about the way people were able to insure themselves against the risks inherent in modern life. Back before the Great Society, before the New Deal, and even before the Progressive Era, things were better. Before government took on the role of providing social insurance, individuals and private charity did everything needed to insure people against the hardships of life; given the chance, they could do it again.
This vision has always been implicit in the conservative ascendancy. It existed in the 1980s, when President Reagan announced, The size of the federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable concern, and called for voluntarism to fill in the yawning gaps in the social safety net. It was made explicit in the 1990s, notably through Marvin Olaskys [i]The Tragedy of American Compassion[/i], a treatise hailed by the likes of Newt Gingrich and William Bennett, which argued that a purely private nineteenth-century system of charitable and voluntary organizations did a better job providing for the common good than the twentieth-century welfare state. This idea is also the basis of Paul Ryans budget, which seeks to devolve and shrink the federal government at a rapid pace, lest the safety net turn into a hammock that lulls able-bodied people into lives of dependency and complacency, that drains them of their will and their incentive to make the most of their lives. Its what Utah Senator Mike Lee references when he says that the alternative to big government is not small government but instead a voluntary civil society. As conservatives face the possibility of a permanent Democratic majority fueled by changing demographics, they understand that time is running out on their cherished project to dismantle the federal welfare state.
But this conservative vision of social insurance is wrong. Its incorrect as a matter of history; it ignores the complex interaction between public and private social insurance that has always existed in the United States. It completely misses why the old system collapsed and why a new one was put in its place. It fails to understand how the Great Recession displayed the welfare state at its most necessary and that a voluntary system would have failed under the same circumstances. Most importantly, it points us in the wrong direction. The last 30 years have seen effort after effort to try and push the policy agenda away from the states capabilities and toward private mechanisms for mitigating the risks we face in the world. This effort is exhausted, and future endeavors will require a greater, not lesser, role for the public.
Over the past 30 years the public role in social insurance has taken a backseat to the idea that private institutions will expand to cover these risks. Yet our current system of workplace private insurance is rapidly falling apart. In its wake, well need to make a choice between an expanded role for the state or a fantasy of voluntary protection instead. We need to understand why this voluntary system didnt work in the first place to make the case for the states role in fighting the Four Horsemen.
…..
…the Great Recession offers the perfect case study in why the voluntary sector cant solve these problems. If people like Mike Lee are correct, then the start of the Great Recession would have been precisely the moment when private charity would have stepped up. But in fact, private giving fell as the Great Recession started. Overall giving fell 7 percent in 2008, with another 6.2 percent drop in 2009. There was only a small uptick in 2010 and 2011, even though unemployment remained very high. Giving also fell as a percentage of GDP (even as GDP shrank), from 2.1 percent in 2008 to 2.0 percent in 2009 through 2011. (The high point was 2.3 percent in 2005.)…the decline occurred with all sources and hit almost all types of nonprofits. Individuals gave 8 percent less in 2008 than the previous year, and their giving dropped an additional 3.6 percent in 2009. Charitable bequests fell 21 percent overall between 2008 and 2010. Contributions by corporations fell in 2008, and only slowly increased afterwards. Foundations also gave less in the Great Recession even though they have legal payout and operating rules to follow that would presumably put a floor on this.
The publics role in combating the Four Horsemen by providing for social insurance doesnt kill private charity. It allows it to fully thrive. It enables private charity to respond with targeted and nimble aid for individuals and communities, rather than shouldering the huge, cumbersome burden of alleviating the income insecurities of a modern age. [b]A public social insurance state gives every individual the security necessary to take risks, which enriches both our economy and our society. And it also establishes a baseline of equality and solidarity among all citizens, so that charity enhances the lives of the less fortunate instead of forcing them to rely on those with money and luck.[/b]
The policy will flow from these commitments. As private pensions become extinct, and 401(k)s and other saving vehicles show they arent up to the challenge of securing our retirement, expanding Social Security to fill this gap will be a necessary step. Because the federal government is better suited to meeting these needs than the states, federalizing both Medicaid and unemployment insurance should also be considered a plank in this policy platform. The federal government can control costs better with its leverage than can individual states; it would make for a more solid backstop in weak economic times; and it would free the states of one of their biggest (and fastest-rising) costs. If SNAP or unemployment benefits had been block-granted into entirely state-level programs, as conservatives wanted to do, theres no way they could have managed the burden of the Great Recession.
But social insurance isnt just a collection of programs. Its a reflection of who we are and how we intend to navigate the risks of a modern age. [b]Contrary to the idealized imaginings of conservatives, the Four Horsemen of accident, illness, old age, and joblessness wont beand have never beenfended off with purely private means. Only a vigorous public response, rooted in Trumans vision of charity, can ensure our safe passage into a prosperous future. [/b]
-
Yes, I have been thinking the same way. I recall seeing all those videos of the Depression with lines coming out of churches and soup kitchens. They were able to serve only the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority remained out on the street where there was not enough good will and charity to go around.
Conservatives talk a lot about how charitable they are, but their charity seems to always be earmarked to only to those causes that they deem “worthy”. Who knows what that means? Are disabled children worthy? How about poor children? How about children who are disabled, poor, and addicted to drugs since their placental home shared their mother’s blood supply?
How about the Target employee trying to feed him and his wife, or her and her husband?
How about the college grad who can only find a part-time job.
How about the bitter, cranky, senior citizen who got laid off at 67 years old, doesn’t have a pension, can’t find another job, has no family for support, and can’t afford to live in a cardboard box?
Who in their right mind honestly believes voluntary charity will provide the proper humanitarian relief to all those who really need it without being judged whether they fit into this or that standard of “need”?
As I said before, the Republican party is hung up on what’s morally right and wrong, while the Democratic party is obsessed with fairness and equality. Republicans give to people they like; Democrats give to people simply in need (and please don’t go pointing out the occasional anecdotal exception).
-
Conservatives give [b]their own money [/b]for charitable causes. Liberals prefer to give [b]other people’s money … [/b]by compulsion or confiscation if necessary.
-
Quote from aldadoc
Conservatives give [b]their own money [/b]for charitable causes. Liberals prefer to give [b]other people’s money … [/b]by compulsion or confiscation if necessary.
I would change the wording to be less pejoritive “Conservatives favor [b]voluntary money[/b] for charitble causes while liberals favor [b]mandatory giving[/b] by compulsion.
But the article above does indeed discuss the reasoning for compulsory federal welfare rather than voluntary charity.
One reason Progressives looked to the state to provide social insurance was that it was seen as necessarily compulsory. By making it universal, low-wage workers could be included. Also, forcing employers to participate was fair because they would directly benefit from such coverage. As Rubinow argued, American workers must learn to see they have a right to force at least part of the cost and waste of sickness back upon the industry and society at large, and they can do it only when they demand that the state use its power and authority to help them, indirectly at least, with as much vigor as it has come to the assistance of the business interests. Because of all this, insurance had a direct public purpose, and should in turn be publicly provided.
Progressives original argument for social insurance also wasn’t a matter of simple redistribution. Instead they saw social insurance as having a public interest. Insurance to protect against poverty, disease, unemployment, and the other risks of life would benefit both individuals and the greater public. Progressives argued that all parties have a stake in the efficient provision of insurance.
That argument still stands today. And yes, it is among the the great polarizing policy issue of the last 100 years… and it going away any time soon.
-
Quote from aldadoc
Conservatives give [b]their own money [/b]for charitable causes. Liberals prefer to give [b]other people’s money … [/b]by compulsion or confiscation if necessary.
You’ve got balls, aldadoc. I have news for you: liberals give to charities too!
I don’t suppose it’s ever occurred to you that despite all those wonderful giving conservatives out there, with all they give out of the goodness of their hearts, it’s still NOT ENOUGH.
The difference is that liberals realize that hard hard fact while conservatives seem to keep themselves warm and cozy in their cave of denial.
-
Yes. Look at how charitable Biden has been. Then compare it to Romney who was demonized by the left.
-
Quote from radmike
Yes. Look at how charitable Biden has been. Then compare it to Romney who was demonized by the left.
There you go generalizing with the anecdote again.
How about the 47 million anecdotes Romney didn’t give a crap about being charitable to?
It’s astounding how shallow you can be and still think you’re fooling anyone.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Interesting thing going on when ultra-rich catholics are warning the pope to shut up about poor people. Ken Langone thinks Jesus is only for rich people while Thomas Perkins and other ultra-rich see Kristallnacht persecution coming on.
What?
Those Jews in 1938 thought THEY were being persecuted?
And they call the poor stupid.
-
Quote from radmike
Yes. Look at how charitable Biden has been. Then compare it to Romney who was demonized by the left.
The anecdotes are fine.
But the bottom line is that relying on voluntary charity as a means of providing social services to the poor is woefully inadequate.
-
Quote from dergon
Quote from radmike
Yes. Look at how charitable Biden has been. Then compare it to Romney who was demonized by the left.
The anecdotes are fine.
But the bottom line is that relying on voluntary charity as a means of providing social services to the poor is woefully inadequate.Not surprising that radmike totally skirted the main issue.
I wonder if radmike also thinks all physicians are slime because of that anecdote named Kevorkian.
-
I never voted for Kevorkian.
The main issue is that forced charity is not charity. It is called confiscation or stealing.
Once the hypocrites catch up to the rest of us then I will listen to them. Until then, pound sand.-
Get the beam out of your own eye.
-
Quote from radmike
I never voted for Kevorkian.
The main issue is that forced charity is not charity. It is called confiscation or stealing.
No. Taxation is NOT theft.
The argument comparing legal taxation (be it for social programs or any other governmental purpose) to theft is convenient trope trotted out by libertarians and anti-tax folks to try to put some morality into their position. This position that taxation is slavery, taxation is robbery, taxation is theft, is the centerpiece of libertarian rhetoric. It is also the least based in reality. Taxes are a just and legal part of every democratic society.
Yes, government can spend taxes unwisely or on programs to which some (or many) of its citizens are opposed. But that does not make those taxes confiscatory. Officals may abuse the public trust through misuse of funds. But that does not mean that the taxes were an injustice.
So again ..
No. Taxation is not theft. And that includes the taxes to provide services to the poor.
-
Quote from radmike
The main issue is that forced charity is not charity. It is called confiscation or stealing.
Once the hypocrites catch up to the rest of us then I will listen to them. Until then, pound sand.Wrong. The issue is taking care of the needy. You can turn that into “charity” if you want to, but that doesn’t take care of the people who need it. If there isn’t enough “charity” around to care for the needy, then yes, it must be “forced”.
-
Looks like Francis & Obama got along well discussing inequality & the plight of the poor.
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/28/world/europe/president-obama-pope-francis.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…bama-pope-francis.html[/link]
After the meeting, Mr. Obama described his discussion with the pope as wide-ranging and focused mainly on two issues: how to help the poor and marginalized, and how to confront conflicts.
In general, the conversation with the pope, as the president described it, was less confrontational than some observers had expected, with almost no time devoted to abortion, same-sex marriage or other social issues.
The warm feelings that were apparent between the two men may reflect their similarities. Both seek to change the institutions they lead, and both are faced with powerful forces that aim to maintain the status quo.-
I thought Obama’s press conference with the PM of Italy went very well. It was so refreshing to see both men speak so lucidly, logically, intelligently, and reasonably without teleprompter or notes.
-
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from turfwar
Never a truer word spoken. We will not be fully enlightened until we make that difficult decision to support all newborns by ensuring they have a reasonable upbringing. But how to do it is the real difficulty. Are poor people really partly responsible for their neural pathology wrought by bad genes, poor antenatal conditions and bad early life treatment? I don’t think so. Yes, they can modify the effects of this if they have insight and extraordinary will, but if they don’t is that their fault?
Which CardiacEvent post were you referring to?
You seem to imply that bad upbringing due to “neural pathology wrought by bad genes, poor antenatal conditions and bad early life treatment” only happens among the poor.
Never a falser word spoken.
-
If you want an economy that works for most people – as in “rising tide…” – don’t vote Republican.
[link=http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2014/mar/28/occupy-democrats/pro-democrat-group-says-9-10-poorest-states-are-re/]http://www.politifact.com…poorest-states-are-re/[/link]
[b]”If Republican economic policies are so great for America, how come 9 out of the 10 poorest states are Red States?”[/b]
According to the latest Census data, 9 of the 10 states with the lowest per-person income levels were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, Idaho, West Virginia, Kentucky, Utah, Alabama, South Carolina and Oklahoma.
The Census data also show that [b]9 of the 10 states with the lowest median household income were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oklahoma.[/b]
[b]And 9 of the 10 states with the lowest median family income were Red: Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Louisiana and South Carolina.[/b]
The only Blue state on each list: New Mexico.
By the way, [b]9 of the 10 states with the highest per-person income voted Blue in the 2012 presidential race: Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Virginia and Washington.[/b] The only Red state on the list: Alaska.
-
[b]”If you want an economy that works for most people – as in “rising tide…” – don’t vote Republican.”[/b]
Yeah Frumi, this economy is so wonderful. Unemployment, underemployed, price at the pump, food prices, dwindling buying power of the dollar, need I go on? You bleeding heart, lemming-like libs had better get on board the Conservowagon before it leaves you behind in obummerland.
[b]
[/b]-
Quote from Point Man
[b]”If you want an economy that works for most people – as in “rising tide…” – don’t vote Republican.”[/b]
Yeah Frumi, this economy is so wonderful. Unemployment, underemployed, price at the pump, food prices, dwindling buying power of the dollar, need I go on? You bleeding heart, lemming-like libs had better get on board the Conservowagon before it leaves you behind in obummerland.
the dollar actually seems like it’s gotten stronger against gold and on the currency exchange market. -
Quote from Point Man
[b]”If you want an economy that works for most people – as in “rising tide…” – don’t vote Republican.”[/b]
Yeah Frumi, this economy is so wonderful. Unemployment, underemployed, price at the pump, food prices, dwindling buying power of the dollar, need I go on? You bleeding heart, lemming-like libs had better get on board the Conservowagon before it leaves you behind in obummerland.Pointless, you’re not making any sense. It’s the red states that are hurting the most. It stands to reason that perhaps their economic ideology doesn’t work. As of this moment, it’s the red states that are sucking our treasury dry, not the blue states. Or are you still going to argue against that, the facts be damned?
It doesn’t matter, none of your posts include any facts anymore; just driveling diatribe post after post. It’s all conservatives have left.
-
Quote from Point Man
[b]”If you want an economy that works for most people – as in “rising tide…” – don’t vote Republican.”[/b]
Yeah Frumi, this economy is so wonderful. Unemployment, underemployed, price at the pump, food prices, dwindling buying power of the dollar, need I go on? You bleeding heart, lemming-like libs had better get on board the Conservowagon before it leaves you behind in obummerland.
[b]
[/b]Republicans are the brakes of the economy and are holding the economy back. Remove the Republicans & you’ll see the economy take off. There must be some reason why the Red States were and remain behind.
-
Quote from Point Man
Yeah Frumi, this economy is so wonderful. Unemployment, underemployed, [b]price at the pump, [/b]food prices, dwindling buying power of the dollar, need I go on? You bleeding heart, lemming-like libs had better get on board the Conservowagon before it leaves you behind in obummerland.
Gasoline prices are lower now than under Bush. By the end of Bush’s second term gasoline skyrocket to an average price of over four dollars per gallon. In contrast, over the past three years the average price of gasoline in the USA has held fairly constant at just under $3.50 per gallon.
[link=http://www.gaspricewatch.com/web_us_average_gas_price_chart.php?period=15year]http://www.gaspricewatch….hart.php?period=15year[/link]
But why draw opinions from real facts when you can make up your own facts from baseless opinions, right Pointless?
-
-
-
-
A nice article today looking at our neighbors to the North. Despite economic recovery in Canada poverty rates are on the rise. In the new economy of the 21st century GDP does not necessarily cut poverty levels. A rising tide no longer lifts all boats.
[b]
How Much Poverty Should a Rich Nation Allow?[/b][/h1]
In Canada today, that question is anything but academic. After weathering the recession better than most, Canada is beginning to grapple with what success should look like in the post-recession world.
In 2006, the share of men 65 or older living in relative poverty was 6.8 percent, about the same as it had been since 2002. That rate increased with the recession — and then, once the recession ended, it kept increasing, reaching 9.1 percent in 2011.
The number of women 65 and older in relative poverty also rose, from 11.8 percent in 2006 to 14.4 percent in 2011. That is one in seven elderly Canadian women, higher than at any point in almost two decades leading up to the recession.
Povertys direst corollary is hunger. The data here are limited; Statistics Canada only presents figures for two periods, 200708 and 201112. But the change between those periods shows the share of Canadians not getting enough to eat increased, from 7.7 percent to 8.3 percent. If that seems like a small change, consider that an increase of that magnitude in the unemployment rate would be headline news. More worrisome, households with children saw an even sharper increase in hunger, to 7 percent from 6 percent.
Not all of that increase can be laid at the feet of the current government. But a campaign focused on the economy could, and should, include ideas for moving those figures in the opposite direction. The lesson from these numbers is that poverty and hunger aren’t going away on their own, regardless of what’s happening in the broader economy.
Just going for “pro-growth” policies is not enough to bring down poverty.
___
On a separate note – The Ryan budget is a travesty. I know it is a political document with no chance of becoming law but the fact that the GOP would sign off on wanting to see those kinds cuts to the weakest, poorest, and oldest in our society makes me feel a a sickening combination of outrage and sadness.
-
I also get a sickening combination of outrage and sadness when I look at how much money our government has spent, how indebted my kids are, and how the number of people on government assistance is at an alltime high and getting worse. Apparently throwing money at a problem while not requiring any discipline or limitations is NOT the answer. It never has been and never will. It seems that it is more about getting votes from the perpetually enslaved rather than allowing people to leave the shackles behind and become self-reliant.
No representation without taxation.-
Again look at history, outside of this recession under Republican administrations debt goes up while under democratic recessions debt goes down. Been that way for 40-50 years now.
So if you are worried about debt, don’t vote republican.-
What I am curious to know is why do we support the subsidies given to the likes of the Walton family to further increase their fortune at the expense of taxpayers. We as a nation provide food stamps and other monetary support to bridge the difference between a livable wage & the wages Wal-mart and their like pay to their employees so that these employees can afford to buy food and pay bills. The objection isn’t that we are subsidizing the Waltons but that the beneficiaries of food stamps are supposedly buying pot with the government credit cards. A story that is discredited but yet lives on.
-
-
-
-
You pick and choose your stats. You pick Bush’s worst month to Obama’s best. Look at the overall picture. The numbers don’t lie.
[blockquote][b]George Bushs average annual gas prices[/b]
2001 $1.61
2002 $1.47
2003 $1.69
2004 $1.94
2005 $2.30
2006 $2.51
2007 $2.64
2008 $3.01
Average price for gas over Bushs eight years = [b]$2.14/gal[/b][b]Barack Obamas average annual gas prices[/b]
2009 $2.14
2010 $2.52
2011 $3.57
2012 $3.72 (through August)
Average price for gas over Obamas four years to 2012 =[b]$2.99/gal[/b]
I will now accept your apology.
[/blockquote]-
Quote from radmike
You pick and choose your stats. You pick Bush’s worst month to Obama’s best. Look at the overall picture. The numbers don’t lie.
[i]”Numbers don’t lie”?[/i] Seriously?
[i]Are you also selling snake oil? [/i]Stop your bs and let the reader look up average annual prices of gas.
The link I included is very clear and is from a non-partisan web site.
[link=http://www.gaspricewatch.com/web_us_average_gas_price_chart.php?period=15year]http://www.gaspricewatch….hart.php?period=15year[/link]
Where’s [u]YOUR[/u] data coming from?
(I just LOVE how you “average” the $4+ price at the beginning of ’08 with the Great Recession crash price at the end of ’08).
-
I looked at your little website, and it supported my argument. And I love how you misrepresent the economy under Bush. You pick the last month when the economy was crashing and try to insinuate that his entire presidency had similar numbers. You are misrepresenting the facts.
[link=http://data.bls.gov]http://data.bls.gov[/link]
[link=http://scottstanzel.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/President-]http://scottstanzel.com/w…ads/2010/06/President-[/link]
Bush-Monthly-Unemployment-Percent1.jpg
You pull the same shenanigans with the deficit.
[b]Government Spending Chart
Fiscal Years 2000 to 2014[/b] Year GDP-US
$ billion nominal Population-US
million Federal Deficit -fed
$ billion nominal 2000 10289.7 282.162 -236.24 a 2001 10625.3 284.969 -128.23 a 2002 10980.2 287.625 157.75 a 2003 11512.2 290.108 377.59 a 2004 12277 292.805 412.73 a 2005 13095.4 295.517 318.35 a 2006 13857.9 298.380 248.18 a 2007 14480.3 301.231 160.71 a 2008 14720.3 304.094 458.55 a 2009 14417.9 306.772 1412.69 a 2010 14958.3 309.350 1294.37 a 2011 15533.8 311.583 1299.59 a 2012 16244.6 313.874 1086.97 a 2013 16797.5 316.129 679.50 a 2014 17332.3 318.400 648.81 b Legend:
a – actual reported
b – budgeted estimate in US FY15 budget
Data Sources for 2000:
[i]GDP:[/i] [link=http://bea.gov/national/xls/gdplev.xls]US Bureau of Economic Analysis[/link]
[i]Federal:[/i] [link=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=BUDGET&browsePath=Fiscal+Year+2015&searchPath=Fiscal+Year+2015&leafLevelBrowse=false&isCollapsed=false&isOpen=true&packageid=BUDGET-2015-TAB&ycord=822]Fed. Budget: Hist. Tables 3.2, 5.1, 7.1[/link]
[i]State and Local:[/i] [link=http://www.census.gov/govs/local/]State and Local Gov. Finances[/link]
Data Sources for 2014:
[i]GDP:[/i] [link=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BUDGET-2015-TAB/xls/BUDGET-2015-TAB-10-1.xls]Fed. Budget: Hist. Table 10.1[/link]
[i]Federal:[/i] [link=http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collection.action?collectionCode=BUDGET&browsePath=Fiscal+Year+2015&searchPath=Fiscal+Year+2015&leafLevelBrowse=false&isCollapsed=false&isOpen=true&packageid=BUDGET-2015-TAB&ycord=822]Fed. Budget: Hist. Tables 3.2, 5.1, 7.1[/link]
[i]State and Local:[/i] [link=http://www.census.gov/govs/local/]State and Local Gov. Finances[/link]
[link=http://usgovernmentspending.blogspot.com/2011/03/change-to-guesstimated-state-and-local.html]Guesstimated[/link] by projecting the latest change in reported spending forward to future years
Since the graph didn’t come across.
[link=http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/download_multi_year_2000_2014USb_15s2li101mcn_G0f]http://www.usgovernmentsp…14USb_15s2li101mcn_G0f[/link]
Happy?-
Well, since yoyu are talking about Bush II
[link=http://www.politicususa.com/2013/10/28/jake-tapper-busts-dick-cheney-deficits-matter-comment.html]http://www.politicususa.c…ts-matter-comment.html[/link]
Paul ONeill, the Secretary of the Treasury for two years under Bush, recalled via [link=http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tentrillion/themes/bush.html]PBS [/link]that he tried to warn Bush but Bush wouldnt even respond. When he told Dick Cheney, Cheney gave him the Reagan proved deficits dont matter line and ONeil was stunned.
[blockquote] How about the vice president? Did you talk to the vice president about this?
I did. Well, he told me, as [Ron] Suskind famously reported in the book he did about me, [The Price of Loyalty], the vice president said to me, maybe in November 2002, Ronald Reagan proved budget deficits dont matter.
He said that to you?
Absolutely. Sat right next to me in the Roosevelt Room. Ill never forget because I was so stunned that anybody could believe that Ronald Reagan proved that budget deficits dont matter.
[/blockquote] [b]The truth is that Bush cut taxes for the rich and increased spending tremendously. Dick Cheney knew what they were doing and they didnt care. They ran up the tab like drunken frat boys with daddys credit card. In fact, [link=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/04/paying_for_the_iraq_war.html]Bush was the only American president to fail to increase taxes to pay for a foreign war launched on his watch.[/link] No problem, because they just stuck Obama with the bill and then spent the next five years concern trolling the deficit they created and blaming Obama for it.[/b]
-
Quote from radmike
;You pick the last month when the economy was crashing and try to insinuate that his entire presidency had similar numbers.
Baloney. I “picked” no such thing.
Even Snopes agrees that the avg price of gas in Dubya’s second term was no different than under Obama. And we were losing over 800,000 jobs per month for an entire YEAR, not just the last month of Dubya’s regime “when the economy was crashing”. And I just LOVE how you gloss right over that crash as if Bush had nothing to do with that during his 8 years of maniacal, pointless squandering of our Treasury.The fact remains that gas has not gone up in price compared to the avg during Dubya’s second term.
-
Oh, so now you choose only Bush’s second term? You are so predictable. You ignore the facts that I give from cited sources which show you are wrong.
You are either a low info voter without the ability to interpret graphs, trends, and calculate averages or you are an unrepentant Obama supporter who doesn’t care about the truth.-
Quote from radmike
Oh, so now you choose only Bush’s second term? You are so predictable. You ignore the facts that I give from cited sources which show you are wrong.
You are either a low info voter without the ability to interpret graphs, trends, and calculate averages or you are an unrepentant Obama supporter who doesn’t care about the truth.Bush’s second term spans the most recent four years before Obama. It’s current enough to be relevant and long enough for an average to be meaningful. If you want to compare similar span of time, then Obama’s first term gas average was significantly LOWER than in the previous POTUS 4-year term. Obviously, the past 6 year will average higher than if you average gas over the previous 8, 15, or 20 years. Were you born yesterday? Do you even know how to spell “statistics”?
You’re just ridiculous in your illogic. And I’m starting to think you actually believe that you make sense, which is very disconcerting.
-
I guess you really are the low-info voter we all suspected.
At least you are consistent.
“Gasoline prices are lower now than under Bush” Proven to be false.
Four Pinocchios for manipulating stats my friend. Maybe the GED thing wasn’t the smartest route for you.
-
Romney comes out in support of raising (and indexing) the minimum wage. ( So does Pawlenty and Santorum)
[link=http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/05/09/romney-on-minimum-wage-we-out-to-raise-it/]Romney on minimum wage: ‘We ought to raise it'[/link]
“I, for instance, as you know, part company with many of the conservatives in my party on the issue of the minimum wage,” “I think we ought to raise it, because frankly, our party is all about more jobs and better pay, and I think communicating that is important to us,”-
Hey Dergon, are you having regrets over not voting for Romney? I told you he was an intelligent, open minded man. The GOP is a big tent party. People are allowed to have varying opinions.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
