Reply With Quote
The Nazis used all sorts of dehumanizing language to make Jews into subhumans. The parallels to the language you use about the poor are very apt, if you don't like it, quit being an evil , and give a about people.
Pretty simple.
Raising upper end marginal rates will tend to have a minimal impact on "the middle class"
And, for the most part, I was being facetious.
25% to 26% is not going to kill anyone above the poverty level. Neither will raising capital gains taxes, nor raising the tax rate on the higher marginal levels.
You are a selfish if you think that raising your taxes by 4% is going to kill you and be the end of the world as we know it. That is dishonest to boot.
The hyperwealthy earn more in interest in a fraction of a second than is required to support a family of four for a year. Complaining about taxing that level of income at a higher rate is not only silly, but makes you look gullible as well.
You were close, but not quite. I hope that clears it up.
The Nazis used all sorts of dehumanizing language to make Jews into subhumans. The parallels to the language you use about the poor are very apt, if you don't like it, quit being an evil , and give a about people.
Pretty simple.
Growing up poor in this country in many places is far harder than your limited experience would allow for, yes.
You do know what the "T" in TANF means, yes?
You are so ing stupid it's unbelievable.
The Nazi demonization of the jews was way more complex than "they used mean words." It was a complex form of racism that relied largely on science (eugenics), cultural hatred dating back hundreds of years (think Wagner), social conditions after WWI, and a perversion of race/racism that essentially invented the Jew and "Jewishness" as a race.
Arguing "vy used meanie words, like the nazis, therefore he's a nazi," is the simplistic for of essentialism you blame so many others of displaying on this forum. For all that you like to bandy yourself about as some kind of intellectual, you really are a ing simpleton.
It is my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it. If you don't like it, wah, get a helmet.
Accusing me of "using the simplistic form of essentialism" after calling poor people "filth" is ing hypocritical beyond belief.
You don't want to show some empathy for your fellow human being, I have no respect for you either, wad.
LOL the euphemistic T was tacked on to get it past the conservatives
Vy, you are going on my ignore list. I let my lower self win, and went back on that, but I intend on keeping that going forward.
I really can't argue with "they deserve to starve to death". It makes me sick, and you are a horrible, evil person.
What a ing attention . Who the cares who you do and don't ignore.
I think the person who presents the 'em, let the poor die, they deserve to starve to death line of reasoning is the the attention tbh. You can't actually think that that is a viable option to deal with poverty in any sort of civilized society.
No, I think the guy publicizing his ignore list is the attention .
I don't think it fixes poverty. But I also don't give a either.
So your position is that there should be no official government policy to deal with poverty as you don't believe that you are in any way affected by it other than that fact that a portion of your income is redistributed to the 'filth' as you put it.
Is is that right? Just trying to understand your position.
My position is that I shouldn't be forced to subsidize other people's poor life decisions. When I up, no one steps in to bail me out. I shouldn't be expected to extend a courtesy to others which I do not receive.
So a major reason people are poor in this country is life decisions that were bad? Do you think people in this country all start out on the same footing and the poor simply make poor decisions?
Seriously, in this country, you are already a step ahead if born male and white. Anyone who wished to have the best probability to benefit both economically and socially in this country, should wish to be male and white.
Now I am not sure how the aforementioned changes, but I totally believe it. So everyone who wishes to be successful in this country should choose be born a poor black female...? Everyone raise your hands, if you could start all over. Accepted socially, and economically stable, up with em. Oprah raises her hand so it's all good. If it worked for her...
When I walked to my car late tonight, back from some work in an area I had not been to before, I had very little to fear from the younger men having a good time but drunk. As a younger female... Ahhh not so much.
When I fish and visit a bait stand to ask what's going on in the bay, I get answers and questions. With a black face... Ahh not so much. Now I realize there are a number of places a white male would not be welcome. But I can think of a whole lot more situations where being female and black, would put me at a serious disadvantage in many ways.
I have never been bailed out either and don't expect to be. I started out ahead, and took advantage of it. But I realize this.
How about defining that in an actual position on policy you'd support. You shouldn't have to subsidize somebody's poor life decisions? Define a poor life desision and how you enforce not subsidizing these desisions through policy. Lets quickly get to the bottom of this ridiculous and completely untenable position.
Why? And, what do you mean by policy? Are you asking me to re-vamp our en lements programs? I wasn't aware of this being a policy discussion. Nor was I aware of the need to support a particular policy as a precondition to airing a grievance.
I can't define what "poor life decisions" are, but I can give examples. One of which is the decision to have a family while your financial prospects prevent you from providing for said family without governmental support. In other words, if your current employer is McDonald's, don't have children.
lol ridiculous and untenable position
It is, as I have attempted to point out, a flawed viewpoint if one understands anything of micro/macro economics.
A society/country is a network of interconnected individuals. Everything one person does, or does not do, affects everyone else.
There are a lot of studies of poverty and of people who receive what is commonly known as "welfare" or the dole.
I doubt anybody who advocates "let them starve" or similar has read any of them. People that tend to hold that view generally know next to nothing about overall data or the programs involved, which have been essentially given to the states to administer.
A few basic facts:
Welfare *(TANF) recipients almost universally work. Very often, you have to have a job to receive welfare.
Welfare benefits have a lifetime cap. After a certain number of years, you are cut off.
Many states have caps on families. More kids past a certain point, gets you no more money.
Add this to falling fertility rates among the poor, (lower births per mother)
And you have a lot of actual data that directly contradicts the uneducated viewpoint that the "poor" on the dole in the US are somehow all lazy with 12 kids. As a group they are neither.
There are some state programs that supplement TANF, but overall, most people studied tended to not be on the program very long. THey would drift in and out depending on their employment.
Overall % of federal budget (FY13) spend on TANF:
16.7bn.
Food assistance, including child nutrition:
107bn.
out of 3770 bn
17+107 = 124 bn 124/3770 = 3%
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/...41_605#usgs302
Three cents out of every dollar the US government spends is on such things.
The other problem with "let them starve" is that lack of nutrition tends to limit IQ, and cause health problems later in life. Both of which contribute to poverty and staying poor. It is, an entirely stupid way to reduce the number of poor people, because food insecurity increases the numbers of poor, in addition to be ing evil.
ing stupid and morally repugnant.
Here is a fairly recent look at the effects overall on welfare reform in the 1990's. It was successful at reducing the number of people on welfare, and increasing workforce participation, as I have noted.
http://dev3.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/4/45...hmannFinal.pdf
The plural of anecdotes is not data.
Oddly enough, scientific studies of conservatives show that they tend to think with the parts of their brain that govern emotion.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci...229-199hk.html
For them, the outrage machine in the US works overtime to supply that part of the brain with examples to get worked up about, at the overall expense of, well, reality.
If the data show that people drift onto and off TANF and other programs, then the lifetime lazy meme is pretty much bull . The anecdotes that drive that are, in effect biased samples and is closely involved in the biased sample logical fallacy. http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...ed-sample.html
If you live, for example in a poor area, odds are that a lot of people there at any given time receive benefits. What you don't know is how long they have been, or will be on such benefits, unless you actively gather the data and follow them. Your perceptions of such recipients will be strongly colored by this biased sample. What you do not have though, is an overall look in all areas of all poor people in the US over a longitudinal study.
I will not argue, and readily accede the following:
There are people who abuse social programs, including food stamps.
There are. That is merely a cost. The benefits are, at the very least, a reduction in human misery.
The real problem is that we don't do enough welfare and dole programs. We piddle at it, and never spend enough to cure some of the worst causes.
This is strongly hinted at when one compares places with more generous social programs.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/ar...bility-winship
We suck at breaking such cycles. We continuously underinvest in a vast potential workforce, and throw away untold human capital.
The overall stickiness of poverty in the most right-wing of western democracies is, in my opinion, very damning of right wing policy solutions when it comes to the poor.
Dehumanizing a subclass so as to marginalize them is a tried and true method of exploitation.
It is rationalization at its worst, and it is kind of shocking to see such a blatant, stupid example in this day and age. One would think we had learned better.
^
Why can't people understand this? If you can't afford to support yourself, you have absolutely no business propagating--and this is why certain people (like me) don't want to foot the bill for others' mistakes. Think of all the screening one has to go through to adopt a kid--but these po' folks just pump out hopeless cases left and right.
RG--as for the uninvested capital remark--how much invested capital into the disenfranchised do you think it would take before the country got a return on their investment? Is this just wishful thinking lib speak?
Apparently it's impossible to hold people responsible for their poor decisions, poor planning, and stupidity withoutbeing a nazi
we? speak for yoursefl
right-wingers are getting dumberer, Randian meaner, and more sociopathic by the day, lost in fantasy land where is reality defined by RNC PR, Fox, Rush, Malking, US CoC, ALEC, etc, etc.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions