Food stamp cuts hit 9 million elderly and disabled people

[RandomGuy]

Tbh I've probably done more for these filthy people than he has. Required pro bono work is a bitch ...

"required" pro bono. So you are forced to help the poor. I find that delicious.

If that is the case, you have done more than I. I simply donate to a couple of childrens charities in my area, and occasionally work at one of the homeless shelters, although time constraints have stopped that for now.

When life eases up in about a year or so, I will probably do some work for CASA, as it is one of the things I believe in most, but I have to be able to support my family first.

And I would point out that I am not saying I am more moral than most or even some people.

I am saying you are less moral than most people, and quite arguably slightly insane, given some of your other statements.

[pgardn]

I try to keep them alive and you try to keep them out of prison...............but we're the murderous Nazi bastards.


I love this forum.:lol

You do love this forum. Your Nazi testimonial with m>s was moving. Yeah I remember...

when did you finally see the truth? My parents had suggested...

You remember it. I am just trying to fathom how you do your work with hatred. It's not like the subhumans are innocent pets to you. Does it feel like removing some rat from your basement with a have-a-heart trap, making sure the rat is not injured, and then releasing it knowing it might end up back in your basement?

If anything, you should be lauded for your initial honest testimonial, but now you are backtracking on your, "When did you find Jesus moment". It's MF strange imo. Sorry, back to the topic, let them starve, they don't deserve my tax money...

[RandomGuy]

I most definitely do not think people that need help are inferior to me, and I very, very much want less human misery.

[Randomguy,]on a psychological level, you desire that suffering

That is normally called lying when you say I think X when I say I think Y.

Or to put it another way,

A strawman logical fallacy.

Fallacy: Straw Man


Description of Straw Man

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Person A = Randomguy
Position X = I, Randomguy, desire less human misery in the world.
Person B = vy65
vy65 represents that what Randomguy really wants when he posts pictures of human misery is more of it, therefore his position that we should act to stop some human misery is flawed.

QED.


This is what a Strawman Logical Fallacy looks like, DD. Just in case you are too lazy to look it up.

[RandomGuy]

I try to keep them alive and you try to keep them out of prison...............but we're the murderous Nazi bastards.


I love this forum.:lol



Children who should've never been born ... Yeah, let 'em starve-


Quote Originally Posted by RandomGuy
"Broods of failure"

Funny way to talk about children.

What is your solution for the children of this "filth"?


Fuck them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.


Social Darwinism is the application of Darwinism, the concept of survival of the fittest, to everyday social circumstances. These can range from wealth debates to political debates, with the general principle being that the strong should see their wealth and power increase while the weak should see their wealth and power decrease. Different social Darwinists have different views about which groups of people are the strong and the weak, and they also hold different opinions about the precise mechanism that should be used to promote strength and punish weakness. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism; but similar concepts have motivated ideas of eugenics, racism, imperialism,[1] fascism, Nazism and struggle between national or racial groups.[2][3]


Yeah, pretty much.

[RandomGuy]

Starvation is a severe deficiency in caloric energy, nutrient, and vitamin intake. It is the most extreme form of malnutrition. In humans, prolonged starvation can cause permanent organ damage[1] and eventually, death. The term inanition refers to the symptoms and effects of starvation.

According to the World Health Organization, hunger is the single gravest threat to the world's public health.[2] The WHO also states that malnutrition is by far the biggest contributor to child mortality, present in half of all cases.[2] Undernutrition is a contributory factor in the death of 3.1 million children under five every year.[3] Figures on actual starvation are difficult to come by, but according to the Food and Agriculture Organization, the less severe condition of undernourishment currently affects about 842 million people, or about one in eight (12.5%) people in the world population.[4]

The bloated stomach, as seen in the picture to the [below], represents a form of malnutrition called kwashiorkor which is caused by insufficient protein despite a sufficient caloric intake.[5] Children are more vulnerable to kwashiorkor whose advanced symptoms include weight loss and muscle wasting.[5]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/47/Starved_girl.jpg/230px-Starved_girl.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starvation

Seems pretty harmful to me. I would not wish that on anyone, let alone innocent children, regardless of what their parents did.

That's fucking evil.

[RandomGuy]

Neat. Still haven't answered my question. I've figured out that you don't have a response.

It's cool though. I'd totally try shitting on people more successful than me while asking them to foot the bill for shit I thought was a good idea if I was some piece of shit accountant.

Now if you could post some more dictionary.com definitions of irrelevant terms that'd be great ...

I actually did answer your question, if memory serves. It gets buried in my over-caffinated post blizzards.

[AntiChrist]

Why does RG keep posting images of emaciated foreign children?

[RandomGuy]

Zing. The only thing that would have made that better is if you :lol vy is a shitty lawyer :lol

If your argumentation here is any indication... Baseless assertions, logical fallacies, and an inability to figure out that some truths can be objectively known through evidentiary discovery. Not exactly the track record of what most would consider a stellar performance for someone whose job was centered around arguing matters of truth, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

Why does RG keep posting images of emaciated foreign children?

Do you think starvation is harmful?

[RandomGuy]

Great, so explain your schema of personal responsibility. Please explain specifically how you hold people who are on welfare or are unable to support a family but who do have a family. In other words, what do you do with those people on or "near" welfare, who cannot financially support a family, but have one anyway? How are they held responsible for their actions?

So back to this. I think I am done rubbing your nose in the shit you left on the floor.

You are a bit young, so you probably don't remember much about the welfare debates in the mid- to late nineties when the system was overhauled.

At that time, people who tend to think like you, and people who tend to think like me both agreed that adding in features to what is commonly called "welfare" to encourage personal responsibility was a good idea. I spent a good deal of time combing through the peer-reviewed research available at the time.

My schema is to simply offer help to those who need it, with means testing for income level, limited lifetime potential benefits, and other things.

I accept, and have fully noted, that some lazy shits will abuse the system. I view this as a cost to be borne for helping those who really need it. The amount of assistance available generally does not provide more than a bare subsistence level living, so if people who are lazy want to live in that kind of misery, about all one can do is offer them job training, and if they want to improve their lives, they can.

Further, if you want to assert that this is a huge problem, then tell me what the scope of that problem is, with some definitions, solid evidence that is as objective as possible, and then we can find some public policy options that make sense in the real world.

What I will grant:
Useless shits exist.
Some useless shits get money from the government, and this enables them to be useless shits, for as long as they want to.

What needs to be proven:
Exactly which programs give money to these people.
What percentage of funds go to these people.
How exactly do we identify these people.

If you want to change something, you need to have a concrete solution. I will assume you aren't serious about killing children by withholding food, and would prefer something else, although that is a tenuous assumption on my part.

[AntiChrist]

Z5tqH7UrzOw

[RandomGuy]

Why does RG keep posting images of emaciated foreign children?

Do you think starvation is harmful?


[youtube

In a perfect world, you might be honest enough to answer that rather simple question.

But, you aren't honest enough to do so. You know that the answer would then be used against someone who you basically, philosophically agree with, and, by extension, damn your own views. So you deflect.

Here is what an honest exchange would look like:


RG: Do you think starvation is harmful?
DS: Yes, obviously.
RG: Do you think purposely harming children is moral?
DS: No, of course not.

You would, then, be in agreement with me that statements that children need to starve are abhorrent.

Since you are not honest, you would never admit that. So I just did it for you, because I know you generally lack the courage to contradict someone you agree with, and allow anyone you don't generally agree with to win any point in any discussion.

You're welcome.

[AntiChrist]

Do you think starvation is harmful?


I think you should do some research. Perhaps you should visit the CDC website and find out the biggest health risks that children face in the USA (not North Korea, Eastern Europe, or countries in Africa).

[AntiChrist]

I also think mass murder is harmful, but I don't think it's going on in the US.

[AntiChrist]

How many of people have died of starvation at that homeless shelter that you "volunteer" at? I'm guessing zero.

[RandomGuy]

I think you should do some research. Perhaps you should visit the CDC website and find out the biggest health risks that children face in the USA (not North Korea, Eastern Europe, or countries in Africa).

I also think mass murder is harmful, but I don't think it's going on in the US.

How many of people have died of starvation at that homeless shelter that you "volunteer" at? I'm guessing zero.

http://kellyjaye.patriotactionnetwork.com/files/2011/10/3bcf4274_n79020_facepalm2028house29.jpg

[AntiChrist]

Lol, ad hominem.

[Wild Cobra]

What I find laughable is that being hungry is not the same as starvation, but you liberal leaning ones are calling it starvation.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Why does RG keep posting images of emaciated foreign children?
When all is lost, just spam pics of Ethiopian kids to try and tug at the ollllll' heartstrings. RG reminds me of that fat bald bastard you see on those "poor soonjoon can't even afford a bowl of rice a day" commercials.

[DeadlyDynasty]

You do love this forum. Your Nazi testimonial with m>s was moving. Yeah I remember...

when did you finally see the truth? My parents had suggested...

You remember it. I am just trying to fathom how you do your work with hatred. It's not like the subhumans are innocent pets to you. Does it feel like removing some rat from your basement with a have-a-heart trap, making sure the rat is not injured, and then releasing it knowing it might end up back in your basement?

If anything, you should be lauded for your initial honest testimonial, but now you are backtracking on your, "When did you find Jesus moment". It's MF strange imo. Sorry, back to the topic, let them starve, they don't deserve my tax money...

Not sure what your point is, or what you hope to accomplish with this post.

Would you prefer I have a good cry on-scene before trying to resuscitate someone?

[vy65]

I'd really like to thank RG for saving all those lives by posting pictures. The way you fed all those children by posting pictures of emaciated Africans was really moving. You're a modern day saint.

[vy65]

And before he blows his rape whistle, this is what the above is in reference to:


Why does RG keep posting images of emaciated foreign children?


Do you think starvation is harmful?

Still trying to figure out the causal connection here ...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When all is lost, just spam pics of Ethiopian kids to try and tug at the ollllll' heartstrings. RG reminds me of that fat bald bastard you see on those "poor soonjoon can't even afford a bowl of rice a day" commercials.

So you are going to ignore the actual demographic of people that receive food stamps as was pointed out in the beginning of the thread.

[vy65]

lol Random Struthers:

XsxVy7vyyk0

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And before he blows his rape whistle, this is what the above is in reference to:

Still trying to figure out the causal connection here ...

You having a difficult time figuring the connection between severance of food aid and starvation. That is pretty sad.

[vy65]

You having a difficult time figuring the connection between severance of food aid and starvation. That is pretty sad.

We're talking about what was accomplished by posting those pictures. Not food aid. Try again RJ.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lol, ad hominem.

What do you expect when you post a bunch of drivel that applies to nothing?

[RandomGuy]

What I find laughable is that being hungry is not the same as starvation, but you liberal leaning ones are calling it starvation.


Fuck them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.


Children who should've never been born ... Yeah, let 'em starve-

Direct quotes to direct questions regarding what to be done with the innocent children. Click the links to see the full thing in context.

Not my words.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We're talking about what was accomplished by posting those pictures. Not food aid. Try again RJ.

Well you certainly are trying to frame the argument but that is not what the overarching discussion is about. He is posting pictures of kids that go without food because of the OP and the subsequent discussion. It's not hard to get right back to the subject at hand. You said you had difficulty determining a causal link. I gave it to you. Its your problem if you are too obtuse or fixated on something else to figure it out.

You guys are so busy trying to obscure the forest for these trees. It's a cliched sophist tactic. You have no interest in arguing the subject on merit anymore. Why not Sally Struthers right?

[DeadlyDynasty]

So you are going to ignore the actual demographic of people that receive food stamps as was pointed out in the beginning of the thread.
Well, considering this has devolved into a shameless exploitation of African children instead...uh, yeah...

[RandomGuy]

Well you certainly are trying to frame the argument but that is not what the overarching discussion is about. He is posting pictures of kids that go without food because of the OP and the subsequent discussion. It's not hard to get right back to the subject at hand. You said you had difficulty determining a causal link. I gave it to you. Its your problem if you are too obtuse or fixated on something else to figure it out.

You guys are so busy trying to obscure the forest for these trees. It's a cliched sophist tactic. You have no interest in arguing the subject on merit anymore. Why not Sally Struthers right?

Pretty much. When all fails, wow 'em with youtubes.

They ask for my schema, whine when they don't get it, then ignore when it is given to them.

Butthurt anyone?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Direct quotes to direct questions regarding what to be done with the innocent children. Click the links to see the full thing in context.

Not my words.

Oh so so he is being a coy, dissembling douchebag too then?

I am curious if he did it because he cannot keep track of his own bullshit or if he instead is trying to be deceptive. Either way: what an ass.

[DeadlyDynasty]

"You shouldn't have kids if you can't afford them." - RandomCuck

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, considering this has devolved into a shameless exploitation of African children instead...uh, yeah...

This was no natural process. You guys are trying pretty hard to derail it at this point.

[RandomGuy]

What do you expect when you post a bunch of drivel that applies to nothing?

http://www.skepticblog.org/wp-content/uploads/Dunning-Kruger.png

[DeadlyDynasty]

This was no natural process. You guys are trying pretty hard to derail it at this point.
Didn't figure you for a liar. This was initially about the elderly and disabled. Who spammed pics of emaciated Ethiopians?

[RandomGuy]

So back to this. I think I am done rubbing your nose in the shit you left on the floor.

You are a bit young, so you probably don't remember much about the welfare debates in the mid- to late nineties when the system was overhauled.

At that time, people who tend to think like you, and people who tend to think like me both agreed that adding in features to what is commonly called "welfare" to encourage personal responsibility was a good idea. I spent a good deal of time combing through the peer-reviewed research available at the time.

My schema is to simply offer help to those who need it, with means testing for income level, limited lifetime potential benefits, and other things.

I accept, and have fully noted, that some lazy shits will abuse the system. I view this as a cost to be borne for helping those who really need it. The amount of assistance available generally does not provide more than a bare subsistence level living, so if people who are lazy want to live in that kind of misery, about all one can do is offer them job training, and if they want to improve their lives, they can.

Further, if you want to assert that this is a huge problem, then tell me what the scope of that problem is, with some definitions, solid evidence that is as objective as possible, and then we can find some public policy options that make sense in the real world.

What I will grant:
Useless shits exist.
Some useless shits get money from the government, and this enables them to be useless shits, for as long as they want to.

What needs to be proven:
Exactly which programs give money to these people.
What percentage of funds go to these people.
How exactly do we identify these people.

If you want to change something, you need to have a concrete solution. I will assume you aren't serious about killing children by withholding food, and would prefer something else, although that is a tenuous assumption on my part.

http://www.bboyscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/icantyping.gif

(sigh)

[RandomGuy]

Didn't figure you for a liar. This was initially about the elderly and disabled. Who spammed pics of emaciated Ethiopians?

Actually, I have only shown one picture of any starving "ethiopian".

The other pictures I have repeatedly shown were of european children.

Fact fail.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Didn't figure you for a liar. This was initially about the elderly and disabled. Who spammed pics of emaciated Ethiopians?

Come now, DD. As has been pointed out, RG didn't start the starvation talk. vy straight out said fuck it let the kids starve. RG quoted the problems of starvation and put up one picture.

So now you characterize it as spam?

You can try to characterize it one way and then call me a liar but its utterly disingenuous.

[DeadlyDynasty]

:lolRG, Do you always meltdown like this when you're flustered? Remember that time (errr...last night) when you brought your uterine cramp takes to the Club and NFL forum?

[RandomGuy]

So you are going to ignore the actual demographic of people that receive food stamps as was pointed out in the beginning of the thread.

Pretty much. The people who hate poor people tend to be too lazy to actually try to identify the people they say they hate.

Giving them actual data on the subject is pearls before swine, it seems. (shakes head)

[RandomGuy]

Come now, DD. As has been pointed out, RG didn't start the starvation talk. vy straight out said fuck it let the kids starve. RG quoted the problems of starvation and put up one picture.

So now you characterize it as spam?

You can try to characterize it one way and then call me a liar but its utterly disingenuous.

You have to look back on page ten or so.

I posted about 5 or 6 pictures of what his social policy looks like in Eastern Europe, and it got him all butthurt when he had to look at it. I posted it again for maximum butthurt.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lolDo you always meltdown like this when you're flustered? Remember that time (errr...last night) when you brought your uterine cramp takes to the Club and NFL forum?

If he is melting down then is certainly not the only one. Why are you giving vy a pass? He has been packing gauze in his ass for several days now. It's also evident that you are irritable as well.

I think all of us have been 'irritated' in this conversation but I hardly see what difference that makes. Stoicism is not strength.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Actually, I have only shown one picture of any starving "ethiopian".

and what does that have to do with our government curbing foodstamps?


The other pictures I have repeatedly shown were of european children.

and what does that have to do with our government curbing foodstamps?

[RandomGuy]

Why should I give a fuck about your or any other bottom feeder who sees me as a ticket to providing them with money


Who decides what sacrifice from whom?

... I don't believe in living to provide for the mass of human filth that is the poor.



Poor = people on the government dole (i.e., TANF and SNAP) = filth


Fuck them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.


Children who should've never been born ... Yeah, let 'em starve-

Of course, I don't even have to speculate what your choice of social policy looks like for the children of this filth. It is fully in place in parts of eastern europe.

http://wegottobefree.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/659042_orphans300.jpg

http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/jn/images/JN0016RIN.jpg

http://media.courierpress.com/media/img/photos/2010/11/12/20101112-165710-pic-498933685_t607.jpg

http://wegottobefree.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/crib1.jpg?w=300&h=192

http://www.webklik.nl/user_files/2010_03/114793/emaciated.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1y6A5A3RNok/T0d-5cCcQBI/AAAAAAAAAoo/riLtiAwG-IE/s1600/orphan5.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZLIf6uOyIFI/T0eFL9j4ylI/AAAAAAAAAo4/u8g0viwYfLI/s1600/orphans12.jpg

http://www.worldwidesmiles.biz/USERIMAGES/Romania%202000-14.jpg



I most explicitly think: letting children starve is horrible. I desire as little of it as possible.

Here, I'll spam it again, so you can whine about how unfair I am.

(apologies to people who don't think starving poor children is a desirable social policy, they are hard to look at for non-evil people)

[RandomGuy]

and what does that have to do with our government curbing foodstamps?



and what does that have to do with our government curbing foodstamps?

The picture was actually referenced by the wikipedia article blurb. You probably didn't read that far, it was too "medical-y" for you, I'm sure.

The european children pictured, as noted were a direct representation of what your preferred social policy looks like in action.

[DeadlyDynasty]

If he is melting down then is certainly not the only one. Why are you giving vy a pass? He has been packing gauze in his ass for several days now. It's also evident that you are irritable as well.

I think all of us have been 'irritated' in this conversation but I hardly see what difference that makes. Stoicism is not strength.
We had a conversation like this a few months ago, but I'm skeptical of social crusaders who rarely, if ever, have to put up with the people they're championing--his supposed soup kitchen anecdotes aside...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

and what does that have to do with our government curbing foodstamps?



and what does that have to do with our government curbing foodstamps?

Wrong question.

You guys repeatedly said 'let them starve.' You still hold that position?

[RandomGuy]

We had a conversation like this a few months ago, but I'm skeptical of social crusaders who rarely, if ever, have to put up with the people they're championing--his supposed soup kitchen anecdotes aside...

(Shrugs)

I have directly known some useless people, and some non-useless people that have drawn benefits.

Feel free to address my serious post at any time.

Define the problem, scope and magnitude. Identify who we need to kick off the rolls so we can help useful people.

Your claims, your burden of proof.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We had a conversation like this a few months ago, but I'm skeptical of social crusaders who rarely, if ever, have to put up with the people they're championing--his supposed soup kitchen anecdotes aside...

:lol why on earth do you keep that job?

[DeadlyDynasty]

I'd post some pics of UKrainian children in 1921 or the early 30's to depict what your ideal form of government is, but I'll be the bigger man here and refrain.

[vy65]

Still waiting to hear what posting all those pics of starving children accomplished ...

[DeadlyDynasty]

:lol why on earth do you keep that job?
Because I'm good at it:lol

[RandomGuy]

I'd post some pics of UKrainian children in 1921 or the early 30's to depict what your ideal form of government is, but I'll be the bigger man here and refrain.

I do not prefer totalitarian governments masquerading as communism, nor communism for that matter.

You can post them, but they would be irrelevant to what I think our government would look like.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'd post some pics of UKrainian children in 1921 or the early 30's to depict what your ideal form of government is, but I'll be the bigger man here and refrain.

so right after the bolshevik revolution and during the great depression? bravo.

I also do not think that he is into Leninism or Stalinism or any other authoritarian communism. I cannot say that for sure though.

[RandomGuy]

Great, so explain your schema of personal responsibility. Please explain specifically how you hold people who are on welfare or are unable to support a family but who do have a family. In other words, what do you do with those people on or "near" welfare, who cannot financially support a family, but have one anyway? How are they held responsible for their actions?

So back to this.

You are a bit young, so you probably don't remember much about the welfare debates in the mid- to late nineties when the system was overhauled.

At that time, people who tend to think like you, and people who tend to think like me both agreed that adding in features to what is commonly called "welfare" to encourage personal responsibility was a good idea. I spent a good deal of time combing through the peer-reviewed research available at the time.

My schema is to simply offer help to those who need it, with means testing for income level, limited lifetime potential benefits, and other things.

I accept, and have fully noted, that some lazy shits will abuse the system. I view this as a cost to be borne for helping those who really need it. The amount of assistance available generally does not provide more than a bare subsistence level living, so if people who are lazy want to live in that kind of misery, about all one can do is offer them job training, and if they want to improve their lives, they can.

Further, if you want to assert that this is a huge problem, then tell me what the scope of that problem is, with some definitions, solid evidence that is as objective as possible, and then we can find some public policy options that make sense in the real world.

What I will grant:
Useless shits exist.
Some useless shits get money from the government, and this enables them to be useless shits, for as long as they want to.

What needs to be proven:
Exactly which programs give money to these people.
What percentage of funds go to these people.
How exactly do we identify these people.

If you want to change something, you need to have a concrete solution. I will assume you aren't serious about killing children by withholding food, and would prefer something else, although that is a tenuous assumption on my part.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Still waiting to hear what posting all those pics of starving children accomplished ...

Do you still hold your view that US policy would be that food aid should be withheld even to children?

[DeadlyDynasty]

(Shrugs)

I have directly known some useless people, and some non-useless people that have drawn benefits.

Feel free to address my serious post at any time.

Define the problem, scope and magnitude. Identify who we need to kick off the rolls so we can help useful people.

Your claims, your burden of proof.
When I see it I'll address it.

[vy65]

Do you still hold your view that US policy would be that food aid should be withheld even to children?


Still waiting to hear what posting all those pics of starving children accomplished ...

[vy65]

So back to this.

You are a bit young, so you probably don't remember much about the welfare debates in the mid- to late nineties when the system was overhauled.

At that time, people who tend to think like you, and people who tend to think like me both agreed that adding in features to what is commonly called "welfare" to encourage personal responsibility was a good idea. I spent a good deal of time combing through the peer-reviewed research available at the time.

My schema is to simply offer help to those who need it, with means testing for income level, limited lifetime potential benefits, and other things.

I accept, and have fully noted, that some lazy shits will abuse the system. I view this as a cost to be borne for helping those who really need it. The amount of assistance available generally does not provide more than a bare subsistence level living, so if people who are lazy want to live in that kind of misery, about all one can do is offer them job training, and if they want to improve their lives, they can.

Further, if you want to assert that this is a huge problem, then tell me what the scope of that problem is, with some definitions, solid evidence that is as objective as possible, and then we can find some public policy options that make sense in the real world.

What I will grant:
Useless shits exist.
Some useless shits get money from the government, and this enables them to be useless shits, for as long as they want to.

What needs to be proven:
Exactly which programs give money to these people.
What percentage of funds go to these people.
How exactly do we identify these people.

If you want to change something, you need to have a concrete solution. I will assume you aren't serious about killing children by withholding food, and would prefer something else, although that is a tenuous assumption on my part.

So you don't believe that people should be held responsible for their decisions. You claim it as a cost of doing business.

Sweet. I'll keep footing the bill and doing more to impact people's lives and you can continue posting wiki articles and calling people nazis.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do you still hold your view that US policy would be that food aid should be withheld even to children?

Well the pictures apparently accomplished you guys being too ashamed to even acknowledge that you siad it in the first place.

I have an idea! Why don't you guys go and edit out all those posts and then you can pretend like it never happened?

[RandomGuy]

When I see it I'll address it.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=224425&page=19&p=6955068&viewfull=1#post6955068

[RandomGuy]

So you don't believe that people should be held responsible for their decisions. You claim it as a cost of doing business.

Sweet. I'll keep footing the bill and doing more to impact people's lives and you can continue posting wiki articles and calling people nazis.

So you aren't serious about this?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So you don't believe that people should be held responsible for their decisions. You claim it as a cost of doing business.

Sweet. I'll keep footing the bill and doing more to impact people's lives and you can continue posting wiki articles and calling people nazis.

If you are going to masturbate could you atleast do it elsewhere? It is unseemly.

And given your apparent skills in argument, I question your efficacy. You seem much more versed in pettiness and snark than making logical refutation.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Still waiting to hear what posting all those pics of starving children accomplished ...


Well the pictures apparently accomplished you guys being too ashamed to even acknowledge that you siad it in the first place.

I have an idea! Why don't you guys go and edit out all those posts and then you can pretend like it never happened?

[DeadlyDynasty]

It's not my job to provide food and shelter for other people's children. Doubly applies to foreign children. Does that mean they should be thrown in gas chambers? No, but the onus shouldn't be on me to foot their bill. I have my own bills and concerns I have to pay for.

[vy65]

So you aren't serious about this?

Serious about what?

About holding people responsible for their acts? For saying that certain children shouldn't be borne? For thinking that there needs to be severe consequences to peoples stupidity?

[vy65]

So you have no answer. Again.

I'm proud to be a member of the fuzzy fan club btw . . .

[DeadlyDynasty]

Serious about what?

About holding people responsible for their acts? For saying that certain children shouldn't be borne? For thinking that there needs to be severe consequences to peoples stupidity?
Their policy is to say "oh well, these retards are gonna fuck anyways so just give them whatever they need."

Sorry, some accountability is long overdue.

[vy65]

If you are going to masturbate could you atleast do it elsewhere? It is unseemly.

And given your apparent skills in argument, I question your efficacy. You seem much more versed in pettiness and snark than making logical refutation.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, I really don't give a fuck if you think I'm a good lawyer or not.

I'm not one of those 1800 abogados who does divorce, bankruptcy, or child support, so you'd never be a client of mine anyway.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's not my job to provide for other people's children. Doubly applies to foreign children. Does that mean they should be thrown in gas chambers? No, but the onus shouldn't be on me to foot their bill. I have my own bills and concerns I have to pay for.

gmfb. your insistence on couching the policy discussion in terms of personal ethics is akin to people that conflate fiscal policy with a household budget.

[vy65]

Their policy is to say "oh well, these retards are gonna fuck anyways so just give them whatever they need."

Sorry, some accountability is long overdue.

I'd be really curious to see what their tax bills look like, tbh.

[DeadlyDynasty]

gmfb. your insistence on couching the policy discussion in terms of personal ethics is akin to people that conflate fiscal policy with a household budget.
Fighting fire with fire in this thread...

[vy65]

Isn't RG like a 40 year old accounting student tbh?

[RandomGuy]

Well the pictures apparently accomplished you guys being too ashamed to even acknowledge that you said it in the first place.



Mission accomplished. :tu I doubt either's family, if shown their words, would be overly proud of that sentiment. I chalk it up to internet hyperbole made all too easy by the impersonal nature of forums like this.

It says a lot to me, though, that neither has the courage to admit the statements were abhorrent and reprehensible, or to explicitly admit to what is obvious to anybody with common sense. It takes courage for that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Also, in case you haven't noticed, I really don't give a fuck if you think I'm a good lawyer or not.

I'm not one of those 1800 abogados who does divorce, bankruptcy, or child support, so you'd never be a client of mine anyway.

:lol you don't care yet you try and then immediately justify yourself.

:lol you undermine your assertion immediately like a dumbfuck

[RandomGuy]

Serious about what?

About holding people responsible for their acts? For saying that certain children shouldn't be borne? For thinking that there needs to be severe consequences to peoples stupidity?

I asked you to identify these people. You say they are a problem.

You instead have posted what you think I advocate.

There are some questions that I would think are pretty important if you want to start changing policies, and they are pretty basic. You might even be able to get me to agree with you, were you to provide some tangible evidence.

Can you identify these people?

Which specific programs are they abusing?

How much do we spend on these programs?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fighting fire with fire in this thread...

I guess but it is besides the point. there is a food surplus and the share of the budget that goes to the entitlements you deride is negligible. It just seems to me that you really do not like some of the people that you run into on your job and are projecting.

It's a policy discussion.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'd be really curious to see what their tax bills look like, tbh.

http://jumbossellout.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/kleenex.jpg

[AntiChrist]

RG really missing some good examples of starvation from North Korea that also have nothing to do with food stamps in the US

https://www.google.com/search?q=north+korea+starving+children&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=-seLUrH8LOaQ2QXl74GgAQ&sqi=2&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=934

[DeadlyDynasty]

Mission accomplished. :tu I doubt either's family, if shown their words, would be overly proud of that sentiment. I chalk it up to internet hyperbole made all too easy by the impersonal nature of forums like this.

It says a lot to me, though, that neither has the courage to admit the statements were abhorrent and reprehensible, or to explicitly admit to what is obvious to anybody with common sense. It takes courage for that.

Your words are as empty as anybody else's on this site. Other than actually helping these people (like vy and I do), you just preach on and on about the same liberal talking points. Why are you online right now? Sell off all your assets and donate the money to those starving children. Each time you post, a child dies hungry.

You ask us for counter-policy proposals, when yours is "just throw more nom-noms at them!" You don't have a fucking clue, and your african and eastern european pics are supposition at best and gross hyperbole (your word, not mine) at worst. Log off and feed the kids!:cry

[DeadlyDynasty]

http://jumbossellout.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/kleenex.jpg
Fuzzy, by your standards that is an inappropriate response imo

[RandomGuy]

I'd be really curious to see what their tax bills look like, tbh.


Fallacy: Circumstantial Ad Hominem

Description of Circumstantial Ad Hominem

A Circumstantial ad Hominem is a fallacy in which one attempts to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background, etc.). The fallacy has the following forms:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A makes claim X because it is in A's interest to claim X.
Therefore claim X is false.
Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on A's circumstances.
Therefore X is false.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

Irrelevant, unless you want to commit another logical fallacy.

Do you want to commit another logical fallacy?

[RandomGuy]

Your words are as empty as anybody else's on this site. Other than actually helping these people (like vy and I do), you just preach on and on about the same liberal talking points. Why are you online right now? Sell off all your assets and donate the money to those starving children. Each time you post, a child dies hungry.

You ask us for counter-policy proposals, when yours is "just throw more nom-noms at them!" You don't have a fucking clue, and your african and eastern european pics are supposition at best and gross hyperbole (your word, not mine) at worst. Log off and feed the kids!:cry

So you can't tell me what programs you want to get rid of?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy, by your standards that is an inappropriate response imo

I agree. Note though how I talk to you differently than he?

[DeadlyDynasty]

So you can't tell me what programs you want to get rid of?
It's 3 agencies of government that when I get there are gone

[RandomGuy]

It's 3 agencies of government that when I get there are gone

So you can't tell me what programs you want to get rid of.

Seems to me that someone who was serious about it would know.

Are you serious about stopping these programs wasting all your money?

[DeadlyDynasty]

It seems like you know as much about this as I do--but you sure do love to posture. As a supposed Nazi and child murderer, I'm all for the food stamp cuts. There will be collateral damage from this, but that's the fault of the system abusers--whom, without their wanton laziness--these cuts would've never been necessary.

Satisfied?

[DeadlyDynasty]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

Irrelevant, unless you want to commit another logical fallacy.

Do you want to commit another logical fallacy?


So you can't tell me what programs you want to get rid of?


So you can't tell me what programs you want to get rid of.

Seems to me that someone who was serious about it would know.

Are you serious about stopping these programs wasting all your money?

btw, 3 more kids just starved during your sermon

[TSA]

To receive benefits:

Require job training
Require community service
Strict limitations on uses of stamps (no junk food/no liquor/no tobacco)

[boutons_deux]

To receive benefits:

Require job training
Require community service
Strict limitations on uses of stamps (no junk food/no liquor/no tobacco)

here's another one borrowed from France: have to check in every week at local unemployment office, pick a some job offers from employers, go for interviews, come back with interview signed by employers.

If you don't show up next week with signed interview forms, benefits are cut.

[RandomGuy]

It seems like you know as much about this as I do--but you sure do love to posture. As a supposed Nazi and child murderer, I'm all for the food stamp cuts. There will be collateral damage from this, but that's the fault of the system abusers--whom, without their wanton laziness--these cuts would've never been necessary.

Satisfied?

(Shrugs)
I know more than you do, in all likelihood. I have read quite a bit of the commonly available peer-reviewed literature on the programs, during the 1990's reform process, and in the course of this discussion, looked up and skimmed a couple more recent papers. It isn't hard to find, and generally not overly lengthy.

I am not asking because I don't know and want to find out.

I am asking because I am virtually certain you don't know, and aren't really serious about this.

Which exact programs do you want to get rid of?

How much collateral damage?

I want to minimize as far as possible any abuse.

Who exactly is abusing the system, and how do we identify them?

[RandomGuy]

To receive benefits:

Require job training
Require community service
Strict limitations on uses of stamps (no junk food/no liquor/no tobacco)

Which benefits? What program or programs are you specifically are you talking about?

[RandomGuy]

btw, 3 more kids just starved during your sermon

Three more crack users just abused the system while you were doing nothing.

[TSA]

here's another one borrowed from France: have to check in every week at local unemployment office, pick a some job offers from employers, go for interviews, come back with interview signed by employers.

If you don't show up next week with signed interview forms, benefits are cut.

I like that one, especially since it requires the interview and not just an application.

If you are already receiving benefits and pop out another kid, benefits are cut.

[TSA]

Which benefits? What program or programs are you specifically are you talking about?

Food stamps, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, housing assistance.

[boutons_deux]

we're never going to punish people for having a kid, NEVER.

more practical is to sue, garnish the impregnator for child support

[DeadlyDynasty]

we're never going to punish people for having a kid, NEVER.

more practical is to sue, garnish the impregnator for child support

To your first statement, that's unfortunately true...damn shame. To the second, that's impractical b/c the impregnator will have nothing to his name--unless you're referring to the government garnishing his nomnoms

[TSA]

we're never going to punish people for having a kid, NEVER.



Until people are held responsible they'll keep popping them out.

[Th'Pusher]

Serious about what?

About holding people responsible for their acts? For saying that certain children shouldn't be borne? For thinking that there needs to be severe consequences to peoples stupidity?

Since you're being serious, do you think that you have effectively argued for holding people responsible for their acts or for any sort of policy position that would curb parents from having children they can't afford? If a senior partner at you firm were to read this thread, would he or she consider your arguments persuasive?

[pgardn]

Not sure what your point is, or what you hope to accomplish with this post.

Would you prefer I have a good cry on-scene before trying to resuscitate someone?

dont play dumb because your not... crying, righto.

Again :

How would it feel giving mouth to mouth blowing on those big black lips? ( yes I know there are better methods)
Is it frustrating reviving the rats knowing they will go back to their vermin ways? You are saving vermin, correct ?

[DeadlyDynasty]

dont play dumb because your not... crying, righto.

Again :

How would it feel giving mouth to mouth blowing on those big black lips? ( yes I know there are better methods)
Is it frustrating reviving the rats knowing they will go back to their vermin ways? You are saving vermin, correct ?
Nobody's done mouth to mouth since the 80's:lol

No need for that anyways, most of time 2mg of Narcan wakes them up--I wonder why that is?

[pgardn]

Nobody's done mouth to mouth since the 80's:lol

No need for that anyways, most of time 2mg of Narcan wakes them up--I wonder why that is?

What did I put in ()? Fruitcake?

The big black lips was an obvious attempt on my part to reveal your dislike for African Americans.
So stop the lame attempts to avoid your ambivalent stance.

Again:

How does it feel saving vermin? They are likely to go right back to their nests, procreate, and produce more criminal vermin, right? I don't give a fk how you save them.

[DeadlyDynasty]

What did I put in ()? Fruitcake?

The big black lips was an obvious attempt on my part to reveal your dislike for African Americans.
So stop the lame attempts to avoid your ambivalent stance.

Again:

How does it feel saving vermin? They are likely to go right back to their nests, procreate, and produce more criminal vermin, right?
:lolYou are so terrible at this, and definitely the most transparent person on this forum.

As for your loaded questions, the answer is I'm just following orders...Get it?!

[vy65]

Since you're being serious, do you think that you have effectively argued for holding people responsible for their acts or for any sort of policy position that would curb parents from having children they can't afford? If a senior partner at you firm were to read this thread, would he or she consider your arguments persuasive?

No, because I (incorrectly) assumed everyone agreed with the central premise that people should been held responsible for their actions. Apparently responsibility isn't a value several posters on here believe applies to those on welfare. What I thought was a given apparently is simply not a belief shared by many on this forum.

Why do you all think that I devote the same energy to this forum that I do to my legal practice? This is a diversion for me; I don't pour over my posts the same way I pour over a pleading. Do you honestly think I have the time to invest in vetting each post the way I vet a complaint?

[pgardn]

:lolYou are so terrible at this, and definitely the most transparent person on this forum.

As for your loaded questions, the answer is I'm just following orders...Get it?!

Sure its transparent.

Loaded, hell no. You set your standards, we are examining your problem.

No I don't get it as all wannabe Nazis don't follow orders.

So if you could secretly sterilize the vermin, would you? Without getting caught, if we could rely on you to play a role in making the world a better place would you?

[DeadlyDynasty]

Sure its transparent.

Loaded, hell no. You set your standards, we are examining your problem.

No I don't get it as all wannabe Nazis don't follow orders.

So if you could secretly sterilize the vermin, would you? Without getting caught, if we could rely on you to play a role in making the world a better place would you?

If it was a legal practice and in my medical protocols, sure I would do it. I'm all for making the world a better place. Sometimes that means addition by subtraction.

[pgardn]

If it was a legal practice and in my medical protocols, sure I would do it. I'm all for making the world a better place. Sometimes that means addition by subtraction.

Now that was not so bad!

And of course we could discuss how you would know who to sterilize. Like are there any blacks or Jews worth saving and letting them have children. But that's another topic.

OK then.
I understand.

[Th'Pusher]

No, because I (incorrectly) assumed everyone agreed with the central premise that people should been held responsible for their actions. Apparently responsibility isn't a value several posters on here believe applies to those on welfare. What I thought was a given apparently is simply not a belief shared by many on this forum.

Can someone not value personal responsibility while also being able to perform a cost benefit analysis and come to the determination that the cost of not providing food subsistence to the needy outweighs the benefits - in this case enforcing personal responsibility? I think that was clearly RG's position, yet you did nothing to refute it. Instead you attempted to shift the conversation to accusing him of an obsession with disaster pornography. Not something I'd expect from someone trained in argumentation.


Why do you all think that I devote the same energy to this forum that I do to my legal practice? This is a diversion for me; I don't pour over my posts the same way I pour over a pleading. Do you honestly think I have the time to invest in vetting each post the way I vet a complaint?

Not at all, but If you're going to take the time to respond, I'd expect you to be able to string together a more coherent argument without multiple logical fallacies.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Now that was not so bad!

And of course we could discuss how you would know who to sterilize. Like are there any blacks or Jews worth saving and letting them have children. But that's another topic.

OK then.
I understand.
Huh?

[pgardn]

Huh?

So suppose its legal to sterilize certain people you find worthless. Maybe you helped craft the law and legalize it. We know from your prior posts blacks and Jews would fall into the worthless (or detrimental to society) category in many or all?cases. We could then examine how you would determine which blacks and Jews should be allowed to have children, if any.

Another time. Perhaps it would be none and the posting would end quickly.

[DeadlyDynasty]

So suppose its legal to sterilize certain people you find worthless. Maybe you helped craft the law and legalize it. We know from your prior posts blacks and Jews would fall into the worthless (or detrimental to society) category in many or all?cases. We could then examine how you would determine which blacks and Jews should be allowed to have children, if any.

Another time. Perhaps it would be none and the posting would end quickly.
Anytime you wanna leave the land of make-believe and rejoin this thread, feel free.

[pgardn]

Anytime you wanna leave the land of make-believe and rejoin this thread, feel free.

Setting up little thought problems can be very revealing. Obviously you will not produce such a law or set the standards for the law. But if you could and did... It's sort of a what degree of hate do you have, what is a worthless life exercise. It is germane to all this back and forth in this thread. As wise as you are, I should think you would agree.

Later.

[DeadlyDynasty]

For some reason whenever i read your posts i hear Will Petersen's voice from Manhunter in all its faux-righteous glory.You'd sterilize those people, WOULDN'T YOU? WOULDN'T YOU YOU SON OF A BITCH?!
HI-FI, can i get an amen?

[vy65]

Can someone not value personal responsibility while also being able to perform a cost benefit analysis and come to the determination that the cost of not providing food subsistence to the needy outweighs the benefits - in this case enforcing personal responsibility? I think that was clearly RG's position, yet you did nothing to refute it. Instead you attempted to shift the conversation to accusing him of an obsession with disaster pornography. Not something I'd expect from someone trained in argumentation.

As a preliminary matter, the disaster pornography bit and the issue of responsibility are wholly separate issues. Agreed. But to suggest that I was responsible for the obfuscation is bullshit. RG sprayed pictures of starving kids, not me. He did so ostensibly to prove a point (although I still don't know what). The disaster pornography was a response to what RG did; it had noting to do with my original claims about personal responsibility. This thread got convoluted, but I ain't the guy responsible for that.

As for your other point, it's hard for me to think that the result of this cost-benefit analysis is nothing but lip service to the notion that people should be responsible for their actions all the while subsidizing their poor behavior. And it's disenguine to say that was RGs initial claim when it took nearly 18 pages to get an actual response out of him.

To your question, I would rather see people who deserve welfare not receive it if it stops subsidizing the welfare queen rather than subsidizing the welfare queen in order to make sure worthy recipients receive aid.

[RandomGuy]

Food stamps, child care assistance, unemployment, cash aid, housing assistance.

Ok, we have some place to start then.

How much do we spend on these specific programs? Where do I find it in the federal budget?

Can you give me some more specific names? That would help find them, to get specifics to fix them.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, because I (incorrectly) assumed everyone agreed with the central premise that people should been held responsible for their actions. Apparently responsibility isn't a value several posters on here believe applies to those on welfare. What I thought was a given apparently is simply not a belief shared by many on this forum.

Why do you all think that I devote the same energy to this forum that I do to my legal practice? This is a diversion for me; I don't pour over my posts the same way I pour over a pleading. Do you honestly think I have the time to invest in vetting each post the way I vet a complaint?

'Hold them responsible for their actions' is just a nebulous phrase that means just about nothing in the context of public policy.

What actions should they be responsible for? Please be specific.

This is exactly what I am getting at when I talk about you being punitive. From a policy standpoint I do not care what they have done in teh past. I am concerned about what they are doing now and moving forward. Your standpoint is akin to holding a child responsible for the sin of the father or debtors prison.

[vy65]

'Hold them responsible for their actions' is just a nebulous phrase that means just about nothing in the context of public policy.

No it's not. It means not providing welfare to people who had kids despite not having the financial means to care for said kids. Hard to get more concrete and specific, as a matter of policy, than that.


What actions should they be responsible for? Please be specific.

Ummm, they should be responsible for the decision to have children despite not having the financial wherewithal to provide for them. Did you honestly just ask this question?


This is exactly what I am getting at when I talk about you being punitive. From a policy standpoint I do not care what they have done in teh past. I am concerned about what they are doing now and moving forward. Your standpoint is akin to holding a child responsible for the sin of the father or debtors prison.

Funny that living with the consequences of your actions is considered punitive. In the real world, we call that responsibility.

But we get it, as a policy matter, you'd subsidize pretty shifty behavior and have other people foot the bill.

And your standpoint is akin to a massive subsidy for unfit parents to breed and gummy society up with broods of failure. I'd rather be a bit more draconian in the hopes of deterring irresponsible behavior. But I get where you're coming from - its easy to be magnaminous when other people are footing the bill.

[RandomGuy]

No, because I (incorrectly) assumed everyone agreed with the central premise that people should been held responsible for their actions. Apparently responsibility isn't a value several posters on here believe applies to those on welfare. What I thought was a given apparently is simply not a belief shared by many on this forum.

Why do you all think that I devote the same energy to this forum that I do to my legal practice? This is a diversion for me; I don't pour over my posts the same way I pour over a pleading. Do you honestly think I have the time to invest in vetting each post the way I vet a complaint?

Again, more strawmen, and laughably dishonest. Even boutons can agree with the principle of personal responsibility, and that says a lot. When you have to lie that badly and obviously, you do not make your case look very strong. Your call though.

As I have said, I do argue for holding people responsible for their actions. There is a limit to that, but, in principle I fully agree.

You have yet to say what exactly you want changed.

Not unlike the twoofers who can't pony up a coherent theory.

[RandomGuy]

No it's not. It means not providing welfare to people who had kids despite not having the financial means to care for said kids. Hard to get more concrete and specific, as a matter of policy, than that.

Ummm, they should be responsible for the decision to have children despite not having the financial wherewithal to provide for them. Did you honestly just ask this question?


So how do we identify these people? Be specific.

Which welfare? There are dozens of programs under this aegis.

What specific benefits do you want eliminated to achieve your ueberutopia?

[vy65]

^ what do you do with people who have children while relying on federal welfare to subsidize their decision to do so?

My understanding is nothing, right? Cost of doing business?

[HI-FI]

For some reason whenever i read your posts i hear Will Petersen's voice from Manhunter in all its faux-righteous glory.You'd sterilize those people, WOULDN'T YOU? WOULDN'T YOU YOU SON OF A BITCH?!
HI-FI (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=34236), can i get an amen?

:lol
I have no idea what this thread is about, first time I've visited it, but fuck it, always a good time....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elf0S0FOm1s

btw scro, not sure if you are a Live and Die in LA fan, but i've owned that soundtrack for quite awhile, Wang Chung's greatest moment.

[vy65]

So how do we identify these people? Be specific.

Which welfare? There are dozens of programs under this aegis.

What specific benefits do you want eliminated to achieve your ueberutopia?

Off the top of my head, have the social worker or state employee responsible for said individual keep track of whether said person has children while on welfare. Eliminate all benefits for abusers.

[vy65]

*braces for dictionary.com definitions and/or starving Africans*

[TSA]

Ok, we have some place to start then.

How much do we spend on these specific programs? Where do I find it in the federal budget?

Can you give me some more specific names? That would help find them, to get specifics to fix them.on my phone right now so copy/pasting data is not something ill be doing at this time. You're more than welcome to answer your own questions if you wish.


Changing gears, I'm curious how much time you guys who don't mind footing the bill for the less fortunate/lazy put in personally to help these people. What outside of what you're taxed do you contribute to them?

[RandomGuy]

TANF sets forth the following work requirements in order to qualify for benefits:[21]

Recipients (with few exceptions) must work as soon as they are job ready or no later than two years after coming on assistance.
Single parents are required to participate in work activities for at least 30 hours per week. Two-parent families must participate in work activities 35 or 55 hours a week, depending upon circumstances.
Failure to participate in work requirements can result in a reduction or termination of benefits to the family.
States, in fiscal year 2004, have to ensure that 50 percent of all families and 90 percent of two-parent families are participating in work activities. If a state meets these goals without restricting eligibility, it can receive a caseload reduction credit. This credit reduces the minimum participation rates the state must achieve to continue receiving federal funding.

Big bad TANF... work requirements. That seems to fit the bill for promoting responsibility.


While states are given more flexibility in the design and implementation of public assistance, they must do so within various provisions of the law:[22]
Provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives;
end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;
prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies;
and encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Assistance_for_Needy_Families

Seems like it is designed around personal responsibility. Maybe we are talking about some other welfare program.

[vy65]

It's the having a kid while not being able to support them that's the issue. Yes, you can be working and still receive tanf. That doesn't make having a kid while being in that situation a good idea. What are you not getting?

[AntiChrist]

I think everyone agrees that there should be a safety net, but is it sustainable when the number of people on food stamps approaches the number of full time private sector workers?

[RandomGuy]

Foster Care

Maybe this is it.

Do we need to cut this program?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foster_care

We could simply end this welfare. Not sure what happens to all the kids though.

vy? Your solution to the children?

[RandomGuy]

It's the having a kid while not being able to support them that's the issue. Yes, you can be working and still receive tanf. That doesn't make having a kid while being in that situation a good idea. What are you not getting?

How many TANF recipients does this apply to?

What %

[RandomGuy]

on my phone right now so copy/pasting data is not something ill be doing at this time. You're more than welcome to answer your own questions if you wish.


Changing gears, I'm curious how much time you guys who don't mind footing the bill for the less fortunate/lazy put in personally to help these people. What outside of what you're taxed do you contribute to them?

A good faith attempt. I can respect that.

I will be happy to start combing through what I can find in the way of specific programs.

Found this that works as a good list of what the people most familiar with the budget consider "welfare"

http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=34919307-6286-47ab-b114-2fd5bcedfeb5

It from Republicans in the Senate, so it is filled with stilted language and cherry-picked figures designed to provoke outrage, but does provide a fair working list of potential targets.

[vy65]

How many TANF recipients does this apply to?

What %

Nvm, misread.

Are you asking me how many people have children while on welfare? I don't know, do you?

[RandomGuy]

I think everyone agrees that there should be a safety net, but is it sustainable when the number of people on food stamps approaches the number of full time private sector workers?

Link?


76% of SNAP households included a child, an elderly person, or a disabled person. These vulnerable households receive 83% of all SNAP benefits.[i]
SNAP eligibility is limited to households with gross income of no more than 130% of the federal poverty guideline, but the majority of households have income well below the maximum: 83% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 100% of the poverty guideline ($19,530 for a family of 3 in 2013), and these households receive about 91% of all benefits. 61% of SNAP households have gross income at or below 75% of the poverty guideline ($14,648 for a family of 3 in 2013).[ii]
The average SNAP household has a gross monthly income of $744; net monthly income of $338 after the standard deduction and, for certain households, deductions for child care, medical expenses, and shelter costs; and countable resources of $331, such as a bank account.[iii]
http://feedingamerica.org/how-we-fight-hunger/programs-and-services/public-assistance-programs/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program/snap-myths-realities.aspx

Here are some of the statistics.

Maybe you can tell me who to cut off of this program, since it is in the OP.

[RandomGuy]

100% of those who do what I've described. Was this question necessary?

So even people who had jobs and could afford the kids they had when they had them would lose benefits?

What about the people who had kids when they could afford them and got too sick to work?

[vy65]

So even people who had jobs and could afford the kids they had when they had them would lose benefits?

What about the people who had kids when they could afford them and got too sick to work?

What about them? That's not the situation I'm concerned about.

What about the person who is on welfare on has a kid?

[RandomGuy]

Nvm, misread.

Are you asking me how many people have children while on welfare? I don't know, do you?

I am not the one claiming there is a huge problem to solve.

In this case, it very definitely involves numbers and quantification. If you can't even specifically identify who to cut off the rolls, you are not going to get your policy solution.

This involves knowing who is on the program and gathering data. Setting up the parameters of what kind of person you want to kick off, then spending money monitoring the recipients for that data.

Given that lifetime benefits are limited to 5 years, and the vast majority are on it for less than two years, the data would suggest your population would have to be fairly small. People just don't stay on this program long enough to actually have kids.

[RandomGuy]

I think everyone agrees that there should be a safety net, but is it sustainable when the number of people on food stamps approaches the number of full time private sector workers?


SNAP participation historically follows unemployment with a slight lag. SNAP participation grew during the recession, responding quickly and effectively to increased need. As the number of unemployed people increased by 94% from 2007 to 2011, SNAP responded with a 70% increase in participation over the same period. [iv]
As the economy recovers and people go back to work, SNAP participation and program costs, too, can be expected to decline. Unemployment has begun to slowly fall, and SNAP participation growth has flattened out. The Congressional Budget Office projects SNAP participation to begin declining in 2015, with both unemployment and SNAP participation returning to near pre-recession levels by 2022.[v]

Seems like it is functioning as planned. Bad economic results produce more need.

Kind of why the government can do this, and private charities can't pick up the slack.

[TSA]

A good faith attempt. I can respect that.

I will be happy to start combing through what I can find in the way of specific programs.

Found this that works as a good list of what the people most familiar with the budget consider "welfare"

http://www.budget.senate.gov/republican/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=34919307-6286-47ab-b114-2fd5bcedfeb5

It from Republicans in the Senate, so it is filled with stilted language and cherry-picked figures designed to provoke outrage, but does provide a fair working list of potential targets.
Thanks. I'll look into it a bit later.

Still curious to find out what you do personally to help the less fortunate/lazy. I have the upmost respect for those who contribute first hand as opposed to those thinking being taxed counts as some moral good to society.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No it's not. It means not providing welfare to people who had kids despite not having the financial means to care for said kids. Hard to get more concrete and specific, as a matter of policy, than that.



Ummm, they should be responsible for the decision to have children despite not having the financial wherewithal to provide for them. Did you honestly just ask this question?

Funny that living with the consequences of your actions is considered punitive. In the real world, we call that responsibility.

But we get it, as a policy matter, you'd subsidize pretty shifty behavior and have other people foot the bill.

And your standpoint is akin to a massive subsidy for unfit parents to breed and gummy society up with broods of failure. I'd rather be a bit more draconian in the hopes of deterring irresponsible behavior. But I get where you're coming from - its easy to be magnaminous when other people are footing the bill.

You have a remarkably narrowminded view regarding personal responsibility.

pu·ni·tive
ˈpyo͞onətiv/
adjective
adjective: punitive; adjective: punitory

1.
inflicting or intended as punishment.

When I hold my kid responsible for his actions and send him to bed without supper then that is a punishment. You are witholding food aid from them as a consequence of not passing the credit check when they got knocked up. It is by definition a punitive measure. Shall we define punishment too? You are linking social services to reproductive rights.

This is eugenics through and through.

Why not sterilize them? They did not pass the credit check to have kids and therefor they do not 'deserve' them.

[pgardn]

For some reason whenever i read your posts i hear Will Petersen's voice from Manhunter in all its faux-righteous glory.You'd sterilize those people, WOULDN'T YOU? WOULDN'T YOU YOU SON OF A BITCH?!
HI-FI (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=34236), can i get an amen?

Well heck.

I thought you would hear Brad Pitt in Inglorious Bastards calling for the Bear Jew.
Im crushed. No, wait, you would be.

[RandomGuy]

A bit more data, culled from the databases of TANF:


The average monthly number of TANF families was 1,847,155 in FY 2010. The estimated average monthly number of TANF recipients was 1,084,828 adults and 3,280,153 children. The average monthly number of TANF families increased in 47 States and reflects an overall seven percent increase from 1,726,560 families in FY 2009. California had the largest number of TANF families in FY 2010 with a monthly average of 576,150, accounting for 31 percent of the U.S. total. New York ranked second with an average monthly caseload of 121,240. Ohio ranked third with a monthly average of 103, 000. California, New York and Ohio had a combined monthly average of 800,400, accounting for 43.3 percent of U.S. totals. The average number of persons in TANF families was 2.4, including an average of 1.8 recipient children.

There is far more there beyond this. Rather than posting a wall of text here is the link for those of you who want to actually inform yourselves:
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource/character/fy2010/fy2010-chap10-ys-final

A note on personal responsibility:

understanding the reasons for case closure is limited by the fact that States reported 21.6 percent of all cases as closed due to “other” unspecified reasons. For example, while independent studies have typically found that half or more of families that stop receiving assistance leave as a result of employment, States reported only 16.6 percent of cases closing due to employment. Many closures due to employment are coded as failure to cooperate or as some other category because at the point of closure

[RandomGuy]

Thanks. I'll look into it a bit later.

Still curious to find out what you do personally to help the less fortunate/lazy. I have the upmost respect for those who contribute first hand as opposed to those thinking being taxed counts as some moral good to society.

Posted it a while back.
Recapping:
Paycheck deductions for two children's charities.
Wife and I used to help prepare meals at a homeless shelter. This has stopped due to time constraints (work has crowded out most spare time).
Work will ease up in a year or so, and I will probably volunteer for CASA, something I very deeply believe in.
http://www.casaforchildren.org/site/c.mtJSJ7MPIsE/b.5301295/k.BE9A/Home.htm

Taking care of my own family at the moment is more pressing.

[RandomGuy]

What about them? That's not the situation I'm concerned about.

What about the person who is on welfare on has a kid?

The available evidence suggests this is a small portion of the overall recipients. TANF is roughly 1% of the federal budget. If 10% of all funds go to such people, you are talking about .1% of all federal spending.

If your goal is to reduce your tax burden, I would suggest cutting veterans health benefits, or social security. Even tiny changes to that will yield massive tax savings because of the much larger share of federal spending on those two items. Alternately, you could reduce Federal spending on the capital gains tax, which is heavily subsidized by people paying taxes on wages.

Speaking of time constraints, must go.

[Th'Pusher]

As a preliminary matter, the disaster pornography bit and the issue of responsibility are wholly separate issues. Agreed. But to suggest that I was responsible for the obfuscation is bullshit. RG sprayed pictures of starving kids, not me.

I would have just called it what it was and left it at that - argumentum ad misericordiam logical fallacy. The whole disaster porn tactic looked evasive imho.

[boutons_deux]

"independent studies have typically found that half or more of families that stop receiving assistance leave as a result of employment"

dumb guess, just might be right: families that start receiving assistance join as a result of unemployment, unemployment at the 7% official and level and much higher totally is looking like it's becoming Euro-style structural.

[boutons_deux]

Ohio Walmart Holds Food Drive For Its Own Employees (http://www.thenation.com/blog/177241/cleveland-walmart-holds-food-drive-its-own-employees)

Activists have long criticized Walmart for failing to pay its employees living wages, and instead relying on the state to step in and pay for the healthcare and food of workers. In Canton, Ohio, another Walmart recently demonstrated (http://www.businessinsider.com/walmart-asks-customers-to-donate-food-2013-11) this kind of corporate welfare by holding a food drive—for its own employees.

“Please donate food items so associates in need can enjoy Thanksgiving dinner,” reads a sign accompanied by several plastic bins.

Understandably, the food drive has sparked outrage in the area.

“That Walmart would have the audacity to ask low-wage workers to donate food to other low-wage workers—to me, it is a moral outrage,” Norma Mills, a customer at the store, told the Plain Dealer (http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/11/is_walmarts_request_of_associa.html).
A company spokesman defended the drive, telling the Plain Dealer it is evidence that employees care about each other. And it’s a good thing they care about their fellow workers because Walmart certainly doesn’t care about its employees.

In the wake of the Ohio Walmart food drive story, Strike Debt, an offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street (http://www.thenation.com/section/occupy-wall-street?lc=int_mb_1001) movement, raised on interesting question on Twitter: “Why not just pay a living wage? (https://twitter.com/StrikeDebt/status/402483006658842624)”
Stephen Gandel, a senior editor at Fortune, recently penned an op-ed (http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/12/wal-mart-pay-raise/) in which he argued Walmart could afford to give its employees a 50 percent raise without negatively affecting shareholders.

I called a couple of really smart economists to get it “peer”-reviewed. Sendhil Mullainathan, who teaches at MIT and received a MacArthur genius grant for his work in behavioral economics a few years ago, said he basically came to a similar conclusion as mine a few years ago. He says companies have more discretion in setting wages then they let on. “Really the question is not whether this is possible but why some companies don’t do it [this way],” says Mullainathan.


http://www.thenation.com/blog/177241/cleveland-walmart-holds-food-drive-its-own-employees

[boutons_deux]

McDonald’s to employees: Break your food into small pieces to feel full and sell your Christmas presents for cash

The fast-food giant McDonald’s is urging employees (http://www.alternet.org/mcdonalds-advice-employees-break-food-pieces-keep-you-full) to break up food into smaller pieces to feel full or sell their Christmas presents for extra money.

The restaurant chain made the recommendations on its “McResource” employee website to help workers manage stress, health and finances.

The company recommended (http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/McDonalds-McResource-Tips-232543631.html) “breaking food into pieces” to feel more full on less food, singing away stress and taking two vacations a year to lower the risk of heart attack, as well as “selling some of your unwanted possessions (http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/11/19/2970651/mcdonalds-advice-underpaid-employees-sell-christmas-presents-cash/) on eBay or Craigslist could bring in some quick cash.”

The recommendations were publicized Tuesday by the group Low Pay Is Not OK, which advocates higher wages for fast-food workers, but McDonald’s claims the advice was taken out of context.

“This is an attempt by an outside organization to undermine a well-intended employee assistance resource :lol website by taking isolated portions out of context,” :lol the company said in a statement, noting that the site’s content was provided by an independent company.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/11/20/mcdonalds-to-employees-break-your-food-into-small-pieces-to-feel-full-and-sell-your-christmas-presents-for-cash/

"employee assistance resource" which doesn't mean a living wage

btw, I read, Chris Hayes' show?, where 40% of US workers make less than $20K/year.

[RandomGuy]

I would have just called it what it was and left it at that - argumentum ad misericordiam logical fallacy. The whole disaster porn tactic looked evasive imho.

Hmmm. Interesting.

What specific argument was being advanced there?

The form is:


The informal structure of the ad misericordiam usually is something like this:


Person L argues statement p or argument A.
L deserves pity because of circumstance y.
Circumstance y is irrelevant to p or A.
Statement p is true or argument A is good.

In this case, the matter being considered was the results of a proposed action.

The pictures were presented to demonstrate the results of that action, and directly relevant.

That they inspire human pity was a side effect, but not central to why I presented them.


Oh, Officer, There's no reason to give me a traffic ticket for going too fast because I was just on my way to the hospital to see my wife who is in serious condition to tell her I just lost my job and the car will be repossessed.


Public Schools, K through 12, need to have much easier exams for students because teachers don't fully realize the extent of the emotional repercussions of the sorrow and depression of the many students who could score much better on easier exams.

As stated the primary purpose was to show that starvation and neglect are harmful to humans.

Is evidence to that effect relevant to the assertion?

Ultimately, the purpose was to get the statement that starvation and neglect as harmful to human children to prove the first section of the statement:

"Vy65 and, subsequently, Deadlydynasty want to harm children."

Given: starvation is harmful to humans, i.e. starvation equals harm
Given: Vy65 and Deadlynasty want to starve children.

A simple substitution of "harm" for "starve" gets me to the statement I was asserting.

It seems pretty directly relevant to having the first given accepted as true. (edit-not that anyone with some common sense might deny that)

[DeadlyDynasty]

Random Guy likes to see starving and homeless children, since he has no interest in addressing why there's all these supposed starving and homeless children.

[boutons_deux]

Wal-Mart could pay every U.S. employee $14.89 just by not buying its own stock (http://www.salon.com/2013/11/19/wal_mart_could_pay_every_us_employee_14_89_just_by _not_buying_its_own_stock/)

Rather than buying stock to enrich Waltons, says new report, Wal-Mart could use the same cash to give $5.83 raises


Wal-Mart could afford to hike every U.S. employee’s hourly wage to at least $14.89 an hour just by not repurchasing its own stock, according to a new report (http://www.demos.org/sites/default/files/publications/A%20Higher%20Wage%20Is%20Possible.pdf) from the progressive think tank Demos.
“We find that if Walmart redirected the $7.6 billion it spends annually on repurchases of its own company stock, these funds could be used to give Walmart’s low-paid workers a raise of $5.83 an hour, more than enough to ensure that all Walmart workers are paid a wage equivalent to at least $25,000 a year for full-time work,” authors Catherine Ruetschlin and Amy Traub write in the Demos paper, “A Higher Wage Is Possible: How Walmart Can Invest in Its Workforce Without Costing Customers a Dime.”

Wal-Mart announced $15 billion in additional stock repurchases at its June annual shareholder meeting, which was attended by thousands of workers flown in from around the world by Wal-Mart, as well as dozens of striking Wal-Mart worker-activists from the labor group OUR Walmart. Also noting a Bloomberg estimate that Wal-Mart repurchased roughly $36 billion in stock in the four prior fiscal years,

how much Wal-Mart currently pays U.S. employees is a contentious question. The company pegs its average hourly wage at $12.78, but that figure includes managers and excludes workers who aren’t full-time. Drawing on 2011 IBISworld data and GlassDoor.com surveys, OUR Walmart activists have pegged the wage at less than $9 per hour. Like Demos, they’ve called for a wage floor of $25,000 a year. OUR Walmart is closely tied to the United Food & Commercial Workers union. After Wal-Mart’s U.S. CEO said in a Goldman Sachs presentation that over 425,000 employees make more than $25,000 annually, OUR Walmart seized on the comment as an implicit admission that the majority make less. Workers have mounted a series of short-term work stoppages in several cities over the past month in the lead-up to a planned “Black Friday” day of strikes and protests next week.

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/19/wal_mart_could_pay_every_us_employee_14_89_just_by _not_buying_its_own_stock/

When the mgmt and board want to enrich themselves by selling Walmart stock back to the company, the Waltons agree completely, while US taxpayers subsidize Walmart with $Bs of public assistance paid to Walmart workers.

[RandomGuy]

Random Guy likes to see starving and homeless children, since he has no interest in addressing why there's all these supposed starving and homeless children.

Of course I have a huge interest in preventing the causes of poverty.

Studies on hunger and poverty are rather easy to come by on children in the US. If you don't think they exist, you have not been looking at real world data.

I am still waiting as to how exactly you want to reform the "welfare system".

i am game for increasing personal responsibility and encouraging employment for those who can work. Hell, even Boutons can sign on to that.

You have me on your side, I just need to know where we need improvement.

If you would, tell me where we need to get started. I need the names of programs, data on how that money is spent, who it goes to, and what the requirements are for receiving that aid.

We can't fix what you want fixed without that basic information.

[boutons_deux]

most of the people on public assistance who are not disabled or old ARE working, like Junk food, Walmart, retail, restaurant staff.

Raising the FEDERAL minimum wage to $15 or more would move a lot of working poor off public assistance, and stop tax payers from subsidizing their employers.

[TSA]

most of the people on public assistance who are not disabled or old ARE working, like Junk food, Walmart, retail, restaurant staff.

Raising the FEDERAL minimum wage to $15 or more would move a lot of working poor off public assistance, and stop tax payers from subsidizing their employers.

Raising Minimum Wage Won't Lower Poverty

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/16/opinion/saltsman-minimum-wage/

The U.S. Census Bureau reported this week that more Americans are living in poverty than ever before measured -- 46.2 million people.

This news was followed by a predictable response from advocacy groups like the National Employment Law Project which suggested that an increase in the minimum wage could help lift Americans out of poverty. And not only that; in a CNN.com op-ed, a policy analyst with the group said that an increase in the minimum wage could boost the economy and create 160,000 jobs.

These claims may pass muster as applause lines at a political rally, but they can't pass the test of rigorous empirical research.

The intuitive thinking on raising the minimum wage is straightforward: Raising the lowest wage that employers can pay will boost the paychecks of the lowest-paid workers and help pull them out of poverty. This line of logic persuaded 28 states to raise their minimum wage above the federal level between 2003 and 2007.


Michael SaltsmanBut research published last year in the Southern Economic Journal, a study funded in part by the Employment Policies Institute, found no evidence that these state minimum wage increases reduced poverty rates. The authors, from Cornell and American universities, suggested that some wage gains were flowing to higher-income families rather than the intended beneficiaries.

There's an even more important effect to account for: a decrease in employers' demand for the less-skilled and less-experienced. Those employees who receive a minimum wage increase may be better off, but those who lose their job because they're now more expensive to employ are most certainly worse off.

Research from economists David Neumark, Mark Schweitzer and William Wascher found a higher minimum wage results in a net increase in the proportion of families who are poor or near-poverty -- meaning that the "losers" from a minimum wage increase outnumber the "winners."

That's difficult for advocacy groups like NELP to grapple with, so they generally choose to ignore it. Instead, NELP's executive director dismisses basic economic concepts like supply and demand as "simplistic" and "18th century." In the CNN.com op-ed, the group's policy analyst directed readers to a handful of outlying studies -- in particular, a 1994 study on the minimum wage from economists David Card and Alan Krueger. (The latter was recently nominated to chair the President's Council of Economic Advisers).

Card and Krueger purportedly debunked the decades-long economic consensus that raising the minimum wage reduces employment, claiming that a 1992 minimum wage increase in New Jersey raised employment. To this day, the study is still showered with superlatives like "groundbreaking" by well-wishers at NELP.

But missing from that re-telling is the story's ending: Card and Krueger's headline-grabbing finding -- that raising the minimum wage had increased employment -- was discredited by another study that found serious problems with the quality of their data.

Key questions in the data collection process were so ambiguous that Card and Krueger reported some fast-food locations changing from zero full-time employees to 29 in less than a year; others reported a dramatic drop in part-time employees, from 60 people down to 15.

When actual payroll data was analyzed by economists Neumark and Wascher, the results flipped: far from boosting employment, the mandated wage increase in New Jersey had decreased employment -- just as standard economic theory would predict. That the New Jersey study was an outlier has become even more apparent in the years since: 85 percent of the most credible studies on the subject in the past two decades have pointed to job loss following an increase in the minimum wage.

So, where does that leave NELP and other like-minded advocates?

In recent months, they've tried to get traction on the "consumer spending" argument, which goes something like this: Raising the minimum wage will put more money in the pockets of low-income workers, who will then spend that money, drive the recovery, and create jobs.

At least the Krueger and Card findings were backed up by a data set, albeit a flawed one. By contrast, this job creation claim is based on no more than a distorted interpretation of a research paper written by three economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. It also ignores a recently released Employment Policies Institute study that shows past increases in the minimum wage have provided no boost to Gross Domestic Product -- and even reduced output in certain industries that employ a high percentage of low-wage employees.

This lack of regard for the evidence demonstrates how the "higher costs means more jobs" mantra has become an article of faith for proponents of a higher minimum wage. To bring down the unemployment rate, businesses need to be willing to grow and invest -- neither of which is likely if we're hampering them with new employment costs. That doesn't mean turning a cold shoulder to the 46.2 million Americans living in poverty. It just means pursuing smarter policies (like an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit) that are proven to boost incomes and employment without the unintended consequences associated with a minimum wage increase.

After all, working people aren't stuck at the minimum wage -- most earn a raise in their first one to 12 months on the job. But they can't get the raise without experience, and they can't get experience, if they don't have a job.

[boutons_deux]

"working people aren't stuck at the minimum wage -- most earn a raise in their first one to 12 months on the job"

link?

Raising the minimum wage isn't directly about their straw man of job creation. Numerous studies have shown that raising the minimum wage a NO EFFECT on joblessness (but I have no doubt some people lose jobs while other get jobs)

Raising the minimum is about DISQUALIFYING low-wagers from public assistance, aka corporate welfare (which you Kock-suckers love), by giving them more income.

[RandomGuy]

"working people aren't stuck at the minimum wage -- most earn a raise in their first one to 12 months on the job"

link?

Raising the minimum wage isn't directly about their straw man of job creation. Numerous studies have shown that raising the minimum wage a NO EFFECT on joblessness (but I have no doubt some people lose jobs while other get jobs)

Raising the minimum is about DISQUALIFYING low-wagers from public assistance, aka corporate welfare (which you Kock-suckers love), by giving them more income.



"raising the wage", without being defined, could mean a 10 cent an hour raise, and almost no appreciable increase in money earned.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that was true, but the term is so broad as to be misleading, if you don't flesh it out. It is an opinion piece, with no compunction to be fair or objective.

I wouldn't read too much into it.

Quite frankly raising the minimum wage really isn't all that effective on the balance, based on what I have read. It is neither as harmful as detractors claim, nor as effective in raising living standards as proponents claim.

What would be better would be for the hyper-wealthy to pay their share of taxes, and use the funds to cut taxes for everybody else.

Simply use the new revenues as block grants to state and local governments. Let them lower the generally regressive property and sales taxes.

[boutons_deux]

"raising the wage", without being defined, could mean a 10 cent an hour raise, and almost no appreciable increase in money earned.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that was true, but the term is so broad as to be misleading, if you don't flesh it out. It is an opinion piece, with no compunction to be fair or objective.

I wouldn't read too much into it.

Quite frankly raising the minimum wage really isn't all that effective on the balance, based on what I have read. It is neither as harmful as detractors claim, nor as effective in raising living standards as proponents claim.

What would be better would be for the hyper-wealthy to pay their share of taxes, and use the funds to cut taxes for everybody else.

Simply use the new revenues as block grants to state and local governments. Let them lower the generally regressive property and sales taxes.

I've mentioned several times about raising the min wage to $15 or more, not $0.10, to push living-wage income off the taxpayers onto the employers. I think a LOT more low-wage people out of work would seek work at $15 than $7.25.

cutting taxes on the 99% won't create jobs.

Roll back all income, estate, and capital gains taxes back to 1975.

[DeadlyDynasty]

Of course I have a huge interest in preventing the causes of poverty.

Studies on hunger and poverty are rather easy to come by on children in the US. If you don't think they exist, you have not been looking at real world data.

I am still waiting as to how exactly you want to reform the "welfare system".

i am game for increasing personal responsibility and encouraging employment for those who can work. Hell, even Boutons can sign on to that.

You have me on your side, I just need to know where we need improvement.

If you would, tell me where we need to get started. I need the names of programs, data on how that money is spent, who it goes to, and what the requirements are for receiving that aid.

We can't fix what you want fixed without that basic information.

I agree with you in some respects. We have to provide food and shelter for the homeless, and oppose racial discrimination and promote civil rights--while also promoting equal rights for women. We have to encourage a return to traditional moral values. Most importantly, we have to promote general social concern and less materialism in young people.

[TSA]

I've mentioned several times about raising the min wage to $15 or more, not $0.10, to push living-wage income off the taxpayers onto the employers. I think a LOT more low-wage people out of work would seek work at $15 than $7.25.

cutting taxes on the 99% won't create jobs.

Roll back all income, estate, and capital gains taxes back to 1975.

And where does this money come from? And what about those making $15, are their wages increased too?

[boutons_deux]

And where does this money come from? And what about those making $15, are their wages increased too?

The money comes from the employers, stupid, just like all wages.

People making $15 aren't the problem we need to solve, are they?

[TSA]

The money comes from the employers, stupid, just like all wages.

People making $15 aren't the problem we need to solve, are they?
And you expect employers will to offer their goods/services at the same price after they are forced to double their employees pay? The people currently making $15 an hour will be a problem as they will demand and deserve to make more than the $15 an hour McDonald's worker, stupid.

[boutons_deux]

so what if junk food gets more expensive, by a few pennies.

so you policy is for taxpayers to keep paying public assistance to the working poor?

[TSA]

so what if junk food gets more expensive, by a few pennies.

so you policy is for taxpayers to keep paying public assistance to the working poor?

Do you really think only fast food workers make minimum wage?

[boutons_deux]

Do you really think only fast food workers make minimum wage?

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Fast_Food_Worker/Hourly_Rate

[TSA]

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Fast_Food_Worker/Hourly_Rate

That doesn't answer my question. Do you think fast food workers are the only one's making minimum wage?

[boutons_deux]

That doesn't answer my question. Do you think fast food workers are the only one's making minimum wage?

of course not.

retail staff, table wait staff, short order cooks, check out clerks, junk food staff, etc, etc.

btw, let's stop exempting table waiters from federal minimum wage. They should get $15/hour, too. They do their jobs, but there's a lot of vindictive, nasty assholes who love the power of NOT tipping.

[DeadlyDynasty]

So boutons is a waiter, eh?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

I'd much rather the system Australia has with table waiters where they all make $20 an hour with a menu 15-20% more expensive but you don't leave a tip. I can't stand a waiter/waitress coming by every 2 minutes asking how good the food is because they're worried about their tip. Don't really blame them tho since the tip is basically their entire salary.

[m>s]

i'd much rather the system nazi germany had where all servers were white and they didn't pay interest to central banks

[boutons_deux]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1463104_10151988327369255_117031561_n.png

[TeyshaBlue]

Wow...imagine that. The family of Walmart makes more money than an associate. Shocking.
Not.

[TeyshaBlue]

Instead of posting some insipid meme cribbed from your rss feed, try to make a lucid point. Bonus points if you can eschew your asinine talking points and speak like an adult.

[boutons_deux]

whoa! The Great Boutons has really pissed off and embarrassed TB :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Psst...Im not embarrased or pissed off. And you cant even sniff greatness.:lmao

[Winehole23]

In a first, working-age people now make up the majority in U.S. households that rely on food stamps - a switch from a few years ago, when children and the elderly were the main recipients.

Some of the change is due to demographics, such as the trend toward having fewer children. But a slow economic recovery with high unemployment, stagnant wages and an increasing gulf between low-wage and high-skill jobs also plays a big role. It suggests that government spending on the $80 billion-a-year food stamp program — twice what it cost five years ago — may not subside significantly anytime soon.

Food stamp participation since 1980 has grown the fastest among workers with some college training, a sign that the safety net has stretched further to cover America's former middle class, according to an analysis of government data for The Associated Press by economists at the University of Kentucky. Formally called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance, or SNAP, the program now covers 1 in 7 Americans.

http://www.realclear.com/us/2014/01/27/the_new_face_of_food_stamps_workingage_americans_5 372.html

[boutons_deux]

Instead of posting some insipid meme cribbed from your rss feed, try to make a lucid point. Bonus points if you can eschew your asinine talking points and speak like an adult.
TB STILL trashing talke an Internet protocol

For those of us that connect the dots, the excessive investor/mgmt compensation comes at the cost of suppressed employee wages and benefits.

Walmart's store/warehoue salaries topped up by taxpayers subsidizing Walmart with public assistance to Walmart employees.

[TeyshaBlue]

Probably need to read page one of this thread, Sparky.

[Winehole23]

a few Repugs are on board with spending a little more on heating assistance to prevent cuts in food stamps: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/opinion/the-plot-to-cut-food-stamps-foiled.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

[RandomGuy]

Wow...imagine that. The family of Walmart makes more money than an associate. Shocking.
Not.

The four Walmart family members are given, without working a second, enough money to employ over one hundred thousand associates who do work 30-40 hours a week.

I do find that shocking to the conscience.

[boutons_deux]

The four Walmart family members are given, without working a second, enough money to employ over one million associates who do work 30-40 hours a week.

I do find that shocking to the conscience.

Walton family stuffing their pockets by not paying their low-end employees living wages and benefits, while taxpayers top up the Walton employees.

[RandomGuy]

double post

[RandomGuy]

https://fbcdn-sphotos-e-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/1463104_10151988327369255_117031561_n.png

3.1bn / 25,000 = 1,240,000


"At the end of fiscal year 2013, Walmart and its subsidiaries employed approximately 2.2 million associates worldwide, with approximately 1.3 million associates in the United States."

http://stock.walmart.com/faqs/


Consider "most" to be 60% to be conservative.

2,200,000 * .6 = 1,320,000

Let's take half of those dividends, and give them to the associates making under 25k per year. After taxes that is an extra 700 bucks or so a year. Not exactly chump change to people having to triage what bills they can pay. A 2% raise after taxes essentially.

[RandomGuy]

Walton family stuffing their pockets by not paying their low-end employees living wages and benefits, while taxpayers top up the Walton employees.

Pretty much. 15% tax rate on dividends, versus the 24% FICA and SS tax rate before any income tax kicks in.

Kinda leaves a lot of the whining about punishing success more than a little hollow, IMO.

[DPG21920]

Educate yourself to move beyond working at Walmart.

Also, stop shopping at Walmart if you don't believe in what they do.

[DPG21920]

This is a very difficult topic for people to discuss because there are morals, feelings and business all mixed up into one giant conversation. By believing that people control their own destinies (especially in America) you run the risk of coming off as callus. On the other hand, I don't believe many people despite a strong devotion to the ideology of "work harder if you don't like your circumstances" feel good when they see someone starving.

Plus, everyone's experiences play a role in what they believe. When I read the "Walmart" articles what always strikes me as odd is how the articles seem to paint the picture that the rich are "bad" and the worker is "good". Why not just say they aren't wrong, but paint the same picture on how they could influence things better if they choose to? Also, I have witnessed a lot of the lifestyles of the so called poor such as the Walmart employee. My girlfriend works strictly with this segment of the population on a daily basis. You would be shocked how that same person in the article complaining about their month to month bills will have a 50' Samsung HD TV and full cable with HD and movie channels. Not to mention pretty damn expensive clothes. There's a lot of lack of education there and no knowledge of wealth management in many of these homes and that is an issue. This isn't conjuncture either - while it doesn't speak to everyone, I can only speak to what I've seen on a regular basis.

[boutons_deux]

Educate yourself to move beyond working at Walmart.

simpleton! or better, dumbfuck!

[boutons_deux]

This is a very difficult topic for people to discuss because there are morals, feelings and business all mixed up into one giant conversation. By believing that people control their own destinies (especially in America) you run the risk of coming off as callus. On the other hand, I don't believe many people despite a strong devotion to the ideology of "work harder if you don't like your circumstances" feel good when they see someone starving.

Plus, everyone's experiences play a role in what they believe. When I read the "Walmart" articles what always strikes me as odd is how the articles seem to paint the picture that the rich are "bad" and the worker is "good". Why not just say they aren't wrong, but paint the same picture on how they could influence things better if they choose to? Also, I have witnessed a lot of the lifestyles of the so called poor such as the Walmart employee. My girlfriend works strictly with this segment of the population on a daily basis. You would be shocked how that same person in the article complaining about their month to month bills will have a 50' Samsung HD TV and full cable with HD and movie channels. Not to mention pretty damn expensive clothes. There's a lot of lack of education there and no knowledge of wealth management in many of these homes and that is an issue. This isn't conjuncture either - while it doesn't speak to everyone, I can only speak to what I've seen on a regular basis.

ditto my previous post! :lol

[DPG21920]

Do you work with this segment of the population? If so, how much do you see inside their homes and lives? Honest question as I am trying to gauge your working knowledge of the people we are discussing.

[DPG21920]

I don't shop at Walmart by the way.

[boutons_deux]

Do you work with this segment of the population? If so, how much do you see inside their homes and lives?

Do you?

[DPG21920]

So you commented on my post without actually reading it? I guess that answers the question.

[boutons_deux]

So you commented on my post without actually reading it? I guess that answers the question.

So your point is that the low-paid poor (esp blacks and browns, of course) are really lazy and not actually poor (same bullshit as Heritage stink tank) and only have to lift themselves up by the self-educating bootstraps to escape poverty and the horrible familial and social culture they were raised in and live in.

[DPG21920]

No

[DPG21920]

So you have no commented on my post without reading it while managing to dodge the very simple question posed to you. You are the largest problem in this country IMO. Stupid and loud.

[boutons_deux]

So you have no commented on my post without reading it while managing to dodge the very simple question posed to you. You are the largest problem in this country IMO. Stupid and loud.

you seem earnest, but :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

Edit...too late. lol

[TeyshaBlue]

The four Walmart family members are given, without working a second, enough money to employ over one hundred thousand associates who do work 30-40 hours a week.

I do find that shocking to the conscience.

My current consulting gig would pay about 10 Walmart salaries.
How many should I bail out?

[TeyshaBlue]

Although...that's kinda apples/oranges. Maybe I could subsidize some of the accounting clerks....they aint pulling down alot of coin.

[RandomGuy]

Wow...imagine that. The family of Walmart makes more money than an associate. Shocking.
Not.

The family of walmart makes more money than tens of thousands of associates.

Serious question:
When does it become a problem for you?

QPKKQnijnsM


The concentration is accelerating.

How much poor to rich wealth transfer will have to take place before you are shocked or concerned?

(edit)

Please take this an honest, non-snarky question. I mean it earnestly, because it seems a question that should be answered by anyone, when considering how our political system should be structured.

[RandomGuy]

Educate yourself to move beyond working at Walmart.

Also, stop shopping at Walmart if you don't believe in what they do.

And if someone can't?

The number of working poor who are holding down more than one job kind of belies the "they need to work harder" schtick.

Blaming the victim is intellectually lazy, and morally reprehensible, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

This is a very difficult topic for people to discuss because there are morals, feelings and business all mixed up into one giant conversation. By believing that people control their own destinies (especially in America) you run the risk of coming off as callus. On the other hand, I don't believe many people despite a strong devotion to the ideology of "work harder if you don't like your circumstances" feel good when they see someone starving.

Plus, everyone's experiences play a role in what they believe. When I read the "Walmart" articles what always strikes me as odd is how the articles seem to paint the picture that the rich are "bad" and the worker is "good". Why not just say they aren't wrong, but paint the same picture on how they could influence things better if they choose to? Also, I have witnessed a lot of the lifestyles of the so called poor such as the Walmart employee. My girlfriend works strictly with this segment of the population on a daily basis. You would be shocked how that same person in the article complaining about their month to month bills will have a 50' Samsung HD TV and full cable with HD and movie channels. Not to mention pretty damn expensive clothes. There's a lot of lack of education there and no knowledge of wealth management in many of these homes and that is an issue. This isn't conjuncture either - while it doesn't speak to everyone, I can only speak to what I've seen on a regular basis.

The rich aren't "bad" and the worker "good".

People should work hard if they want to improve their situation.

People who make poor decisions, will always be poor.

That doesn't make them less than human.

I would push for financial education as part of a poverty solution, and I think most would agree.

Question:
How do we go about providing that to adults who are poor now, and/or their children?

There is a pretty good argument to be made that such education would more than pay for itself in economic growth and improving living standards.

[TeyshaBlue]

The family of walmart makes more money than tens of thousands of associates.

Serious question:
When does it become a problem for you?

QPKKQnijnsM


The concentration is accelerating.

How much poor to rich wealth transfer will have to take place before you are shocked or concerned?

(edit)

Please take this an honest, non-snarky question. I mean it earnestly, because it seems a question that should be answered by anyone, when considering how our political system should be structured.

*Snark Detection System* NO SNARK DETECTED
That's a fair question with a problematic answer. The question implies that there is an optimum wealth ratio out there somewhere. I'm not sure that even exists since there is probably not an agreed upon answer. The easy answer would be "Less than what we have now. " but that's fool's gold as it really doesn't answer anything.
What would your answer be, RG?

[RandomGuy]

*Snark Detection System* NO SNARK DETECTED
That's a fair question with a problematic answer. The question implies that there is an optimum wealth ratio out there somewhere. I'm not sure that even exists since there is probably not an agreed upon answer. The easy answer would be "Less than what we have now. " but that's fool's gold as it really doesn't answer anything.
What would your answer be, RG?

My ideal would be very similar to that of the people polled for the video I posted.

Talent, skill, drive, hard work and innovation should be rewarded, but people at the bottom should not be struggling.

The thing is that we don't have to have a perfect answer to generally work towards what we have a vague consensus on. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good, so to speak.

Does the current wealth concentration concern you?

[angrydude]

Why wealth is concentrated is very concerning.

Welfare is a very cheap way to stop people from rioting.

And there is a whole lot of government spending that should be cut before welfare cuts are ever considered.

Sadly I fear talk radio is mostly to blame for making struggling middle class people resentful of poor people's welfare.

[boutons_deux]

"Welfare is a very cheap way to stop people from rioting."

poor people aren't going to riot, but right-wing white paranoid asshole "marans" will continue shooting up police, judges, schools, court houses, etc.

"And there is a whole lot of government spending that should be cut before welfare cuts are ever considered."

House Repug just increased "tax expenditures" by $75B in cuts and subsidies to corps and wealthy, without any-pay/offset.

"Sadly I fear talk radio is mostly to blame for making struggling middle class people resentful of poor people's welfare"

that certainly contributes, but the slander of criminal/lazy poor and the LIE of the deserving hyper-wealthy go well beyond talk radio sources.

[TeyshaBlue]

My ideal would be very similar to that of the people polled for the video I posted.

Talent, skill, drive, hard work and innovation should be rewarded, but people at the bottom should not be struggling.

The thing is that we don't have to have a perfect answer to generally work towards what we have a vague consensus on. The perfect should not be the enemy of the good, so to speak.

Does the current wealth concentration concern you?

I agree as to perfection vs good. However, missing is "workable". Vague consensus isn't going to cut it when trying to hammer out policies to address this. Wealth concentration, per se, does not concern me. As the concentration currently stands, and it's progression since the go-go 80's yes, it does concern me. It's a symptom of imbalance. Might be the driver of imbalance as well.


Sorry for the late response...been on the road this week.:toast

[RandomGuy]

Why wealth is concentrated is very concerning.

Welfare is a very cheap way to stop people from rioting.

And there is a whole lot of government spending that should be cut before welfare cuts are ever considered.

Sadly I fear talk radio is mostly to blame for making struggling middle class people resentful of poor people's welfare.

Define "welfare". Which federal or state programs specifically?

Who gets it? How much?

If one ever gets into an argument with asshats like vy65 or the like, that should be your go-to set of questions. I will guarantee you that the people who talk most about personal responsibility, have done the LEAST amount of research, like anyone who thought it was their personal responsibility to make informed decisions might actually do.

Getting into the moral dimension after that, such as was done a few pages back here, also really is revealing because one can clearly see how immoral that same group of people is.

[RandomGuy]

I agree as to perfection vs good. However, missing is "workable". Vague consensus isn't going to cut it when trying to hammer out policies to address this. Wealth concentration, per se, does not concern me. As the concentration currently stands, and it's progression since the go-go 80's yes, it does concern me. It's a symptom of imbalance. Might be the driver of imbalance as well.


Sorry for the late response...been on the road this week.:toast

"driver" indeed. It is a result of a feedback loop.

The people who can save money, use the money to make more money, which means they can save more money, then use that money to make more money...

Expenses like health care and college have gone up far faster than inflation, eating into most people's ability to save.

[CosmicCowboy]

Much is made of the stagnation of middle class incomes but I have yet to hear a logical solution. Government simply can't provide a solution and any attempt just creates more problems.

[CosmicCowboy]

"driver" indeed. It is a result of a feedback loop.

The people who can save money, use the money to make more money, which means they can save more money, then use that money to make more money...

Expenses like health care and college have gone up far faster than inflation, eating into most people's ability to save.

This is absolutely true but at the same time that is the middle classes best option to increase wealth. That is one of the many reasons capital gains are treated differently than ordinary income.

Capital gains aren't just for trust fund babies. It is for middle class families trying to save for retirement and invest in basic things like owning housing instead of renting.

[Wild Cobra]

So...

Does anyone have a solution?

[boutons_deux]

So...

Does anyone have a solution?

FEDERAL minimum wage should be raised high enough so nobody working 40 hours/week is on public assistance. Which would reduce public assistance payouts at all levels, local, state, federal, kill taxapyers welfare to businesses.

Federal threshold for OT should be up to $75K, reversing the Repugs' War on Employees hit by lowering it back in the mid 2000s, disqualifying 100Ks employees from OT, a blatant give to employers, and screwing the low to middle class employees.

iow, start to reduce inequality by pushing up from the bottom.

[RandomGuy]

This is absolutely true but at the same time that is the middle classes best option to increase wealth. That is one of the many reasons capital gains are treated differently than ordinary income.

Capital gains aren't just for trust fund babies. It is for middle class families trying to save for retirement and invest in basic things like owning housing instead of renting.

It could be, had "middle class" or even poor people the chance to save.

They don't. Incomes have remained stagnant or worse for a generation, as the level of college debt per student rather aptly demonstrates.

What it ends up being, is a gimmie to the hyperwealthy.

[boutons_deux]

"one of the many reasons capital gains are treated differently than ordinary income"

really? which specific govt policy(ies) says capital gains low taxes and all kinds of loopholes for the wealthy who can afford to buy accountants/lawyers to exploit the loopholes so the middle class can increase their wealth.

BigCorp/VRWC War on Employees, esp unions, has stagnated real household income since the late 1970s. Even high-paid jobs' real income has stagnated since the late 1990s.

[RandomGuy]

FEDERAL minimum wage should be raised high enough so nobody working 40 hours/week is on public assistance. Which would reduce public assistance payouts at all levels, local, state, federal, kill taxapyers welfare to businesses.

Federal threshold for OT should be up to $75K, reversing the Repugs' War on Employees hit by lowering it back in the mid 2000s, disqualifying 100Ks employees from OT, a blatant give to employers, and screwing the low to middle class employees.

iow, start to reduce inequality by pushing up from the bottom.

Minimum wage increase would be a really good start.

[RandomGuy]

This is absolutely true but at the same time that is the middle classes best option to increase wealth. That is one of the many reasons capital gains are treated differently than ordinary income.

Capital gains aren't just for trust fund babies. It is for middle class families trying to save for retirement and invest in basic things like owning housing instead of renting.

Then fine, but set an annual limit to the amount you can exempt. Easy peasy.

[InRareForm]

Raise minimum wage is fine, but don't screw over the other employees who are making the same now as the new minimum wage... Adjust it accordingly. There will be many discrepancies obv. If no adjustments are Done.

[boutons_deux]

"don't screw over the other employees"

raise them, too.

raise EVERYBODY

real household income, esp single males incomes, has BEEN STAGNANT for 35+ years.

Where do you think we'd all be, America would be, now if real household, single incomes had kep with with GDP increases since 1975?

you people eat shit pie gratefully and think that shit pie is all you ever deserve, shit pie has always been the norm, but it just ain't so.

[boutons_deux]

Report: Taxpayers cover the costs of low wages

Four days a week, Marcie Barnett rises at 3 a.m. and then travels by bus and train about 90 minutes from her South Shore apartment to her job as a security officer atO'Hare International Airport (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/transportation/air-transportation/ohare-international-airport-PLTRA0000141-topic.html).She's on her feet for eight-plus hours patrolling the airport corridors, guarding doors to make sure people don't improperly enter or exit and watching over the baggage claim area.

But with her $12.20 an hour wage, Barnett doesn't earn enough to pay rent on her three-bedroom apartment, cover utilities and buy groceries for her daughter and granddaughter, who live with her. So she relies on a Chicago housing choice voucher to subsidize more than half of the rent.

"I have expenses that are going up and some bills just don't get paid," said Barnett, who has learned not to panic over her state of constant financial crisis. "I've been living like this for so long, I don't even think about it. It's become second nature."

Take Mary Hood, 29, a Bronzeville mother who works for $10.50 an hour at McDonald's. When she started working at the fast-food chain, she was a cashier, but she worked hard and got a management position.

Still, her hourly pay remained the same.

"My paychecks vary because I work depending on business," she said. "So my pay is not consistent. I have one daughter and I have rent, lights, gas, life insurance and school fees. I just stretch it out paying what I can throughout the month."

As a result, Hood collects $360 a month in food stamp benefits and relies on Medicaid for health care. Without the public aid, she wouldn't be able to make it.

"I feel like, why should I have to depend on government assistance when I get up and go to work every day?" she said. "I'm not the type of woman or mother to depend on the state. These programs are supposed to assist you until you don't need it. I have a job and can't let go (of the benefits) because my job doesn't provide all I need."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-working-and-on-welfare-20160103-story.html

Repugs ALWAYS block raising Federal minimum wage, while cutting health and welfare programs.

Thanks, Repugs. Fucking America at every turn.

[Wild Cobra]

Report: Taxpayers cover the costs of low wages

Four days a week, Marcie Barnett rises at 3 a.m. and then travels by bus and train about 90 minutes from her South Shore apartment to her job as a security officer atO'Hare International Airport (http://www.chicagotribune.com/topic/transportation/air-transportation/ohare-international-airport-PLTRA0000141-topic.html).She's on her feet for eight-plus hours patrolling the airport corridors, guarding doors to make sure people don't improperly enter or exit and watching over the baggage claim area.

But with her $12.20 an hour wage, Barnett doesn't earn enough to pay rent on her three-bedroom apartment, cover utilities and buy groceries for her daughter and granddaughter, who live with her. So she relies on a Chicago housing choice voucher to subsidize more than half of the rent.

"I have expenses that are going up and some bills just don't get paid," said Barnett, who has learned not to panic over her state of constant financial crisis. "I've been living like this for so long, I don't even think about it. It's become second nature."

Take Mary Hood, 29, a Bronzeville mother who works for $10.50 an hour at McDonald's. When she started working at the fast-food chain, she was a cashier, but she worked hard and got a management position.

Still, her hourly pay remained the same.

"My paychecks vary because I work depending on business," she said. "So my pay is not consistent. I have one daughter and I have rent, lights, gas, life insurance and school fees. I just stretch it out paying what I can throughout the month."

As a result, Hood collects $360 a month in food stamp benefits and relies on Medicaid for health care. Without the public aid, she wouldn't be able to make it.

"I feel like, why should I have to depend on government assistance when I get up and go to work every day?" she said. "I'm not the type of woman or mother to depend on the state. These programs are supposed to assist you until you don't need it. I have a job and can't let go (of the benefits) because my job doesn't provide all I need."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-working-and-on-welfare-20160103-story.html

Repugs ALWAYS block raising Federal minimum wage, while cutting health and welfare programs.

Thanks, Repugs. Fucking America at every turn.




Were any of them able to support a family before having kids?

I suspect not.

Why should I coddle stupidity?

[RandomGuy]

Much is made of the stagnation of middle class incomes but I have yet to hear a logical solution. Government simply can't provide a solution and any attempt just creates more problems.

Logical solution would be to increase taxes on the wealthy, who can afford to pay the taxes, i.e. making our progressive income tax system a bit more progressive.
Since all the economic growth is going to that segment of the population, it is simply logical to get them to pay for the system that is benefitting them almost exclusively, at the expense of everybody else.

Paydown overall debt for a year or two, then plow funds into the kinds of infrastructure spending we all know we need to do, as well as increasing education funding. Personally, I would throw in a re-vamping of our space program as well. Our nation could do better.

[RandomGuy]

Were any of them able to support a family before having kids?

I suspect not.

Why should I coddle stupidity?

So, you are for providing free abortions? I'm confused.

[TeyshaBlue]

Logical solution would be to increase taxes on the wealthy, who can afford to pay the taxes, i.e. making our progressive income tax system a bit more progressive.
Since all the economic growth is going to that segment of the population, it is simply logical to get them to pay for the system that is benefitting them almost exclusively, at the expense of everybody else.

Paydown overall debt for a year or two, then plow funds into the kinds of infrastructure spending we all know we need to do, as well as increasing education funding. Personally, I would throw in a re-vamping of our space program as well. Our nation could do better.

I don't necessarily disagree with this. But I have to wonder just how much we would actually gain by doing this. What are we going to do tax at 100%? Because if we did that, I'm still unsure that it would actually solve our problem.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Were any of them able to support a family before having kids?

I suspect not.

Why should I coddle stupidity?

If that is the case then you should sterilize yourself first.

[RandomGuy]

I don't necessarily disagree with this. But I have to wonder just how much we would actually gain by doing this. What are we going to do tax at 100%? Because if we did that, I'm still unsure that it would actually solve our problem.

No one is saying that would be necessary or even desirable.

I personally would oppose such a thing as being really dumb policy.

Thing is though, the people benefitting the most from the economy, are the wealthiest who have seen their incomes rise over the last 20 years, yet their tax burden has actually fallen as a percentage of their income.

They have the most capacity to bear the costs of what is benefitting them.

A modest tax increase to make needed investments is what is called for, IMO.

[CosmicCowboy]

I haven't finalized my 2015 taxes yet but it looks like I will end up paying around $160,000 in federal taxes personally. This doesn't count corporate tax I will pay. I sure as hell don't consider myself rich. How much more do you want to increase it RG? How is it that you think I should "owe more" just because I finally benefit from working hard and making good life and business decisions?

[Winehole23]

However abstract the Robin Hood myth has become in political terms, to retell it is to embed the central plan of taking from the rich to give to the poor in the specifics of the era when it first emerged, somewhere between the First Crusade and the Black Death, that is, somewhere between the beginning of the 11th century and the middle of the 14th. In the context of high medieval England, the modern right-wing notion of taxation as an oppressive burden on the great mass of people makes sense. The majority of the population were peasants working the land. They were obliged to pay three kinds of tax: one, indirectly, through customs duties and debasement of the coinage, to the king, to finance his wars; another to the church; and a third, the largest, to their feudal landlord. Most peasants were enserfed – that is, bound to the lord in the place where they were born – and paid taxes in kind, in the form of compulsory labour in the lord’s fields, with the family having to surrender their best beast to their lord when the head of the household died. At the same time they were subject to an intense system of local monopolies under the lord’s control – obliged to pay to use the lord’s mill to grind their corn, for instance, or the lord’s ovens to bake their bread – and to a complex web of prohibitions, fees and fines for everything from having a child out of wedlock to killing the lord’s doves. This flow of money, labour and goods from the slave poor to the landholding rich brought nothing to the poor in return except a vague, often broken promise of protection from external violence and the intangible pledge of relief in heaven. The rich were not hardworking; they would have been insulted to be described as such. They conspicuously spent the taxes they received on themselves: on luxuries, on display, on the aristocratic pastimes of war, poetry, fashion, music, dancing, hunting, romance and fornication. The medieval Robin Hood, then, was not taking from the rich to give to the poor so much as taking back from the rich to return to the poor, who would be doing all right if the rich hadn’t been so greedy.


It’s this medieval notion of taxation as robbery from a hardworking peasantry to fund the lifestyle of idle hedonists that maps directly onto the version of the Robin Hood myth that conservative and right-wing populist parties want to promote. This is what Osborne is getting at when he tweets with the hashtag #hardworkingpeople and says: ‘Where is the fairness, we ask, for the shift-worker, leaving home in the dark hours of the early morning, who looks up at the closed blinds of their next-door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits?’ When he does this he’s positioning himself as Robin Hood; the welfare state and the unemployed as the rapacious Anglo-Norman aristocracy of 13th-century England; and all those who think they pay more in taxes than they get back, be they shift workers or billionaires, as the peasants who feed them. In Pity the Billionaire: The Unlikely Comeback of the American Right, Thomas Frank describes a similar process in America: ‘The conservative renaissance rewrites history according to the political demands of the moment, generates thick smokescreens of deliberate bewilderment, grabs for itself the nobility of the common toiler, and projects onto its rivals the arrogance of the aristocrat.’

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v38/n04/james-meek/robin-hood-in-a-time-of-austerity

[Winehole23]

There is a cynical view which says that as long as the majority of the population feel they’re doing all right, a democratically elected government is safe to squeeze the poor and pamper the rich. But cynicism is a risky thing to rely on when a government is simultaneously cutting spending and shedding control of the universal networks on which its entire population relies. As Hobsbawm writes in Bandits, ‘concentration of power in the modern territorial state is what eventually eliminated rural banditry, endemic or epidemic. At the end of the 20th century it looks as though this situation might be coming to an end, and the consequences of this regression of state power cannot yet be foreseen.’ We’re a long way from the return of the literal outlaw to Nottinghamshire. But we need to remember the insight given our ancestors when they saw through the illusion of the Robin Hood myth, when they saw that the strongbox of silver coins wasn’t just money stolen from each of them individually, but power robbed from them collectively, and that they needed to wield that power collectively as much as they needed their money back. For sure, freedom to choose is a grand thing, and the market will try to help you exercise it. With a bit of money in the bank, a middle-class family might choose to send their child to private school, provided by the market; but that same family can’t choose to build and maintain a universal education network by itself, and the market won’t provide it. With money, you can choose to buy a car, and the market will provide it; but you can’t choose, all by yourself, to build and maintain a universal road network, and the market won’t provide it. To make and keep universal networks requires the authority of the state, an authority that has been absent; and it’s hard to see where that authority might come from if the people don’t find a way to assert their kingship.same

[RandomGuy]

I haven't finalized my 2015 taxes yet but it looks like I will end up paying around $160,000 in federal taxes personally. This doesn't count corporate tax I will pay. I sure as hell don't consider myself rich. How much more do you want to increase it RG? How is it that you think I should "owe more" just because I finally benefit from working hard and making good life and business decisions?

A bit on how poverty affects decisions:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-brain-on-poverty-why-poor-people-seem-to-make-bad-decisions/281780/

A bit on the theory of progressive income taxes:

http://economics.mit.edu/files/6820

Both are good, if you have the time.

Taxing $1000 away from you does not take away your ability to pay the electric bill, and what we understand about human decision making leads me to be much less judgmental about poor people than vy65 and his immoral ilk.

[RandomGuy]

I don't necessarily disagree with this. But I have to wonder just how much we would actually gain by doing this. What are we going to do tax at 100%? Because if we did that, I'm still unsure that it would actually solve our problem.

Estate taxes, that force rich kids to actually fend for themselves, and keep us from having a permanent aristocracy.

Paris Hilton is what I think of when people say "sense of entitlement"

[boutons_deux]

Estate taxes, that force rich kids to actually fend for themselves, and keep us from having a permanent aristocracy.

Paris Hilton is what I think of when people say "sense of entitlement"

How about US mega/international corps with $Ts parked offshore thinking they are ENTITLED to a tax holiday, pay 5% on the repatriated profits?

How about the super-wealthy who think that are ENTITLED to a different and rigged tax system from the non-wealhy?

TB's :lol "100% tax" is his typically inane bullshit, a strawman. USA has never taxed at 100% and nobody is proposing that.

[Wild Cobra]

A bit on how poverty affects decisions:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2013/11/your-brain-on-poverty-why-poor-people-seem-to-make-bad-decisions/281780/

A bit on the theory of progressive income taxes:

http://economics.mit.edu/files/6820

Both are good, if you have the time.

Taxing $1000 away from you does not take away your ability to pay the electric bill, and what we understand about human decision making leads me to be much less judgmental about poor people than vy65 and his immoral ilk.
most people in poverty are their by their own actions. Some just have bad luck. I refuse to have assholes like you make me feel guilty. I make nowhere near CC, but I feel my $20+k annual is more than my fair share.

[Wild Cobra]

Estate taxes, that force rich kids to actually fend for themselves, and keep us from having a permanent aristocracy.

Paris Hilton is what I think of when people say "sense of entitlement"

Estate taxes also sometimes disassemble small businesses and put people out of work.

[Wild Cobra]

Taxing $1000 away from you does not take away your ability to pay the electric bill, and what we understand about human decision making leads me to be much less judgmental about poor people than vy65 and his immoral ilk.

If you keep taking away what you don't think people better off need...

My God. You are a fucking asshole!

If you wish yo donate more of your hard earned money, do so. Put your money where your mouth is. Just don't expect others to have to do it.

Where idiots like you really piss me off royally, is that I give to charities of my choice. the more you demand of me to give elsewhere, the less I can give to entities I think need it.

Go fuck yourself!

[RandomGuy]

most people in poverty are their by their own actions.

Link?

How do you know this?

[RandomGuy]

Estate taxes also sometimes disassemble small businesses and put people out of work.

Prove it.

Then....

Once you have shown this is the case, you should be able to see how often this is the case.

Then we would need to consider if the costs of an occasional marginal business going under outweigh the costs of having vast amounts of wealth locked up by unproductive idle rich.

[RandomGuy]

If you keep taking away what you don't think people better off need...

My God. You are a fucking asshole!

If you wish yo donate more of your hard earned money, do so. Put your money where your mouth is. Just don't expect others to have to do it.

Where idiots like you really piss me off royally, is that I give to charities of my choice. the more you demand of me to give elsewhere, the less I can give to entities I think need it.

Go fuck yourself!

Fuckity fuck fuck to you too.

Now that we have that out of our system, maybe we can discuss tax policy a bit more rationally.

We can start by you not telling me what I think. Let me do that, I will be happy to let you know.

It also might help if we got to some common understanding of tax issues, and how taxation should work.

If someone earns $15,000 per year, and $1,000 is taken away is it the same as taking $1,000 from someone earning $300,000 per year?

Why or why not?

[Wild Cobra]

Link?

How do you know this?

Are you blind?

How many people have children before they can afford to have them?

[Wild Cobra]

Prove it.

Then....

Once you have shown this is the case, you should be able to see how often this is the case.

Then we would need to consider if the costs of an occasional marginal business going under outweigh the costs of having vast amounts of wealth locked up by unproductive idle rich.

I said sometimes.

Are you suggesting that can never happen?

[Wild Cobra]

If someone earns $15,000 per year, and $1,000 is taken away is it the same as taking $1,000 from someone earning $300,000 per year?

Why or why not?

It's not the same percentage wise.

Do you have any actual examples where the super rich pay less of a percentage in income taxes than the poor?

FICA is capped, and the rich can draw no more than the middle class worker when retiring. When we look at just what we file with the federal form 1040 and others, and state taxes too, I think you would be hard pressed to find a rich person that pays less of a percentage.

Capital gains are a different beast. There are some changes needed in the tax code there, but they are designed as a lower rate because if you raise them too high, people will stop investing capital.

I have for unforgotten years now, advocated moving away from a income tax system to a consumption tax system. This way, people are taxed on what they spend. Not what the make. You just tax different products at a different rate. Essentials like food, toothpaste, toilet paper, etc. would have no tax. The poor would only be taxed on what wasn't considered a necessity. I also have advocated a one-time mandatory pay increase to all wage earners that shift the employer cost of FICA 100% to the worker. Enough more is given to the worker to pay both sides of FICA expenses. We now call, it a social tax instead of FICA, and have no cap on it. We then index this tax rate to what congress spends on entitlements and other social programs, so the voters are more accountable for who they put in congress.

I know you will disagree with this, find ways to shoot it down, but guess what. No system is perfect. There are several gains from such a system. We can eliminate the future need of the IRS and many CPA jobs, because taxation would become much simpler. It would help return manufacturing jobs to the USA because we would be more in tune to competing taxation of import/exports. Currently, we tax corporations huge amounts to produce products to sell overseas, which then get taxed again by their consumption taxes. we buy goods artificially chea[per compared to our own goods because most ciountries don't tax their imports, then we only tax the retail profits. It is one of the reasons for our trade imbalance.

[boutons_deux]

"Do you have any actual examples where the super rich pay less of a percentage in income taxes than the poor?"

yep, there was a study in Texas that showed total taxes, all types, paid by the TX bottom was a higher percentage than that paid by the TX wealthy.

And I am pretty sure Bishop Gekko added up ALL TYPES of his taxes to claim in 2012 that he paid 14%.

[Spurminator]

Obviously the reasonable solution is forced sterilization.

Haha, just kidding, only a sociopathic nutcase would think that was a justifiable idea.

[clambake]

Obviously the reasonable solution is forced sterilization.

Haha, just kidding, only a sociopathic nutcase would think that was a justifiable idea.

no, he said people that can't afford kids shouldn't be allowed to have any.


him being the lone exception.

[Wild Cobra]

"Do you have any actual examples where the super rich pay less of a percentage in income taxes than the poor?"

yep, there was a study in Texas that showed total taxes, all types, paid by the TX bottom was a higher percentage than that paid by the TX wealthy.

And I am pretty sure Bishop Gekko added up ALL TYPES of his taxes to claim in 2012 that he paid 14%.



Those taxes included SS, which is capped.

I'm speaking of only what is filed on a tax return.

[Wild Cobra]

no, he said people that can't afford kids shouldn't be allowed to have any.


him being the lone exception.
Well, I don't think people who think like you should have kids, but that's a different argument, and I would never advocate enforcing that. It's just a rather strong moral opinion of mine.

[boutons_deux]

Those taxes included SS, which is capped.

I'm speaking of only what is filed on a tax return.

of course you are. that's how you invalidate you tax policies.

and the wealthy have a different tax system than the bottom 2 deciles.

[clambake]

if you're exempt from that "moral opinion", where is the morality in that?

[Spurminator]

no, he said people that can't afford kids shouldn't be allowed to have any.


him being the lone exception.


He has also said:


If people are irresponsible enough to have kids they can't afford, they should have their tubes tied in exchange for subsidies so they can't burden society with more subsidies in the future.


Simple solution.

Someone needs government assistance to raise kids they couldn't afford to have when they coceived, make them get their tubes tied for the privilege of assistance That way, we don't have repeat offenders of this crime on society. Both the man and woman.


they are so irresponsible as to have children they can not provide for, society should have the right to make sure they are not a repeat offender.

[TeyshaBlue]

How about US mega/international corps with $Ts parked offshore thinking they are ENTITLED to a tax holiday, pay 5% on the repatriated profits?

How about the super-wealthy who think that are ENTITLED to a different and rigged tax system from the non-wealhy?

TB's :lol "100% tax" is his typically inane bullshit, a strawman. USA has never taxed at 100% and nobody is proposing that.

I didn't propose that, simpleton. It was an illustrative question...not that you can be bothered to think. :rolleyes

[TeyshaBlue]

Estate taxes, that force rich kids to actually fend for themselves, and keep us from having a permanent aristocracy.

Paris Hilton is what I think of when people say "sense of entitlement"

That should have an impact of about .005%.

[RandomGuy]

most people in poverty are their by their own actions.

Link?

How do you know this?




Are you blind?

How many people have children before they can afford to have them?

Again, not really an answer.

I asked "how" do you know this.

Are you unaware of what caused you to believe this is true?

How do you know most people who are in poverty are there because of their own actions?

Define "most".
Define "poverty".