Politics

[irishpat183]

It's 100% irrelevant if he works real hard and becomes a millionaire and whatnot and has all of the success in the world, if enough of his compatriots fall by the wayside.
How is this so hard to get? I'm honestly perplexed.

So what is the problem? That's our system, which has built more wealth than any other in history at the fastest pace in history.


Businesses fail all the time...but a new one steps in and takes it's place. There are winners and losers. I can live with that. Everyone does not "deserve" to be successful. you must work for it. Why reward people for just "being here"??

I don't know if you've actually realized that this is a problem that will NEVER be fixed.

 

[Wild Bill]

I'm almost 100% opposed to estate taxes.

This stance flies in the face of your prior post (10167), where it seems you agree with Bluto's view that an inheritance should be heavily taxed. Am I missing something?

 

[ACamp1900]

One could look at Southern Cal's football program and find things they do well. They aren't 100% incorrect.

Like their uniforms...

also, since where were the Nazis a country??

 

[Buster Bluth]

So we just give up on said bum!?!? Very uncompassionate of you.....

I get the mocking, so subtle.

See unlike you I base my opinions in facts backed by research and statistics, trying to solve poverty from the 40-year old bum down doesn't work...it's part of why the War on Poverty failed.

Waking up and realizing "Oh! We need to educate the children and get them into college so they don't become bums!" shouldn't be that hard.

Because the "War" on anything works well for the government (war on drugs is a homerun)

The War on Elderly Poverty (i.e., Social Security) lifted tens of millions out of poverty.

The War on Poor Rural Standards of Living (i.e. bringing electricty to rural areas in the 1930s) turned out alright, I'd say.

The War on Uneducated Veterans (i.e. the GI bill) created the world's most educated workforce and unheard of levels of prosperity (...tragically wasted).

The War on Environmental Pollution has saved millions of American lives (1.8mil in your lifetime just from diversifying energy resources).

You can solve a lot of things with correct policies, which are usually most effective at the state level.

Sorry, but you will never fix poor.

We will never eradicate poor. I get that. But "fixing" is a weird way to phrase it. We can certainly put a huge dent in it because we're doing so much wrong. It's like telling a 1-11 team they'll never fix losing, when improvement to 11-1 is still ****ing fantastic.

I don't care how much of my hard earned money you want to throw at it. What we can do, is make it more difficult to be poor. Forcing thsoe that want the free ride, to get up and be productive. Those that truly need help, will get it.

Read this to yourself until you realize how stupid it sounds.

I haven't said free ride one time. Classic GOP inventing arguments again. Major case of Vietnam Syndrome.

It is no coincidence that as our government spends more....more and more people are added to the welfare pool.

...wut.

 

[Buster Bluth]

This stance flies in the face of your prior post (10167), where it seems you agree with Bluto's view that an inheritance should be heavily taxed. Am I missing something?

A man can be taxed before he dies.

Seriously that's what I was referring to. I think taxing someone post-death is wrong. Higher taxes for a billionaire versus minimum-wage lady at Taco Bell...not awful. The kid can make due with inheriting less (due to not lowering taxes during his father's lifetime).

 

[wizards8507]

...wut.

Federal poverty spending is positively correlated to poverty.

i.e. The more we spend to fix poverty, the more poverty there is.

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitst.../11127_2005_Article_BF01048360.pdf?sequence=1

 

[wizards8507]

A man can be taxed before he dies.

Seriously that's what I was referring to. I think taxing someone post-death is wrong. Higher taxes for a billionaire versus minimum-wage lady at Taco Bell...not awful. The kid can make due with inheriting less (due to not lowering taxes during his father's lifetime).

So you want a wealth tax? Rather than tax income, you tax assets?

 

[Buster Bluth]

So what is the problem? That's our system, which has built more wealth than any other in history at the fastest pace in history.

First off, capitalism is the greatest miracle in the history of the world. But that doesn't mean it's 100% great. That wealth is increasingly in the hands of the owners of the capital and less of it is in the hands of the middle class. That has huge implications if it gets worse over time, but I seriously doubt you have the ability to get that after reading some of your opinions on the poor.

Businesses fail all the time...but a new one steps in and takes it's place. There are winners and losers. I can live with that. Everyone does not "deserve" to be successful. you must work for it.

I haven't argued against this at all.

Why reward people for just "being here"??

You serious Clark? Reward? I said something about reward?

How about recognizing that LARGE NUMBERS OF POOR PEOPLE IS BAD FOR EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY, YOU AND I ARE CONNECTED TO THEM WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY.

I don't know if you've actually realized that this is a problem that will NEVER be fixed.

I agree. But, for an analogy, that doesn't mean you settle for 20% unemployment when you can get it to 4-5%.

 

[Buster Bluth]

So you want a wealth tax? Rather than tax income, you tax assets?

No. I don't want to change general process. It needs considerable tweaking, not a complete change in thinking.

 

[IrishLax]

Federal poverty spending is positively correlated to poverty.

i.e. The more we spend to fix poverty, the more poverty there is.

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitst.../11127_2005_Article_BF01048360.pdf?sequence=1

Didn't follow link, but if it's only correlation... couldn't it be rephrased to "the more poverty there is, the more that is spent on poverty"?

 

[GowerND11]

I have to say something about this not poor by accident thing. My girlfriend is currently homeless. Her father is in and out of jail for drugs (heroin I believe), and her mother has a warrant out for her arrest due to drug charges. Her uncle is on drugs (bath salts) whom she was living with until this year, and her brother ODed in February. She has nowhere to live. This isn't her fault yet some of you are claiming it is??? She is currently in college doing her best to get a degree to get out of the cycle, but she has nothing. She has to stay on friends' couches and at my house when she comes home for a weekend. She has $70 to her name. How can you not say someone like that doesn't deserve some kind of break (tuition aid, etc). I understand the premise of hard work and determination, but without some help those things are not obtainable. Wizard I understand you worked your butt off and feel that people can overcome poverty, but you also had a family to support you. While you may not have had much, that support system can do wonders, while other, like the kids Buster coached and my girlfriend, have never had that stability and support to make sure they do it the right way. Some stray, see Buster's case, while some do everything they can to not end like their families, see her. However, it can, without some kind of help, be almost impossible for many many Americans.

 

[irishpat183]

I get the mocking, so subtle.

See until you I base my opinions in facts backed by research and statistics, trying to solve poverty from the 40-year old bum down doesn't work...it's part of why the War on Poverty failed.

Waking up and realizing "Oh! We need to educate the children and get them into college so they don't become bums!" shouldn't be that hard.



The War on Elderly Poverty (i.e., Social Security) lifted tens of millions out of poverty.

The War on Rural Poverty (i.e. bringing electricty to rural areas in the 1930s) turned out alright, I'd say.

The War on Environmental Pollution has saved millions of American lives (1.8mil in your lifetime just from diversifying energy resources).

You can solve a lot of things with correct policies, which are usually most effective at the state level.



We will never eradicate poor. I get that. But "fixing" is a weird way to phrase it. We can certainly put a huge dent in it because we're doing so much wrong. It's like telling a 1-11 team they'll never fix losing, when improvement to 11-1 is still ****ing fantastic.



Read this to yourself until you realize how stupid it sounds.

I haven't said free ride one time. Classic GOP inventing arguments again. Major case of Vietnam Syndrome.



...wut.

LOL...please explain this one...because I got some chinese people mining some precious metals to build solar panels in horrible conditions, that would like to chat...


SS is going broke. There are currently more people taking that giving. And with 10k boomers A DAY retiring, it's headed for disaster. It's simple math.

I've never heard about the "war on rural poverty"..... You must mean FDR's "Raw" deal

THe New Deal is the biggest sham in history.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Federal poverty spending is positively correlated to poverty.

i.e. The more we spend to fix poverty, the more poverty there is.

http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitst.../11127_2005_Article_BF01048360.pdf?sequence=1

He's insinuating that the government wants more people on the dole so they can increase their power. That's what the "...wut" was for.

I don't at all agree with a causation there per se, but do I agree that the War on Poverty needs complete overhaul and is a massive failure. If that makes sense. haha

 

[Quinntastic]

Buster...I think I love you...

 

[wizards8507]

Didn't follow link, but if it's only correlation... couldn't it be rephrased to "the more poverty there is, the more that is spent on poverty"?

The Granger causality tests reveal that AFDC benefits generally Granger-cause the caseload. This finding supports the work disincentive hypothesis that benefits cause people to join the welfare rolls.

It's a lot of statistical mumbo-jumbo, but they isolated causation, not just correlation.

 

[irishpat183]

I have to say something about this not poor by accident thing. My girlfriend is currently homeless. Her father is in and out of jail for drugs (heroin I believe), and her mother has a warrant out for her arrest due to drug charges. Her uncle is on drugs (bath salts) whom she was living with until this year, and her brother ODed in February. She has nowhere to live. This isn't her fault yet some of you are claiming it is??? She is currently in college doing her best to get a degree to get out of the cycle, but she has nothing. She has to stay on friends' couches and at my house when she comes home for a weekend. She has $70 to her name. How can you not say someone like that doesn't deserve some kind of break (tuition aid, etc). I understand the premise of hard work and determination, but without some help those things are not obtainable. Wizard I understand you worked your butt off and feel that people can overcome poverty, but you also had a family to support you. While you may not have had much, that support system can do wonders, while other, like the kids Buster coached and my girlfriend, have never had that stability and support to make sure they do it the right way. Some stray, see Buster's case, while some do everything they can to not end like their families, see her. However, it can, without some kind of help, be almost impossible for many many Americans.

Who said she "deserves" it? The point is, even your girlfriend, has opportunity to turn her situation around.



And jesus man, she's had some nasty things thrown her way...god bless.

 

[Buster Bluth]

LOL...please explain this one...because I got some chinese people mining some precious metals to build solar panels in horrible conditions, that would like to chat...

Nuclear Power has saved 1.8mil lives from lung cancer, by merely reducing the coal consumption.

SS is going broke. There are currently more people taking that giving. And with 10k boomers A DAY retiring, it's headed for disaster. It's simple math.

Jesus Christ how often do we go over this? The simple math is that it can work perfectly if it were left alone for the last fifty years--it wasn't, and if the necessary reforms were made to keep it an elderly poverty system and not a national retirement system.

I've never heard about the "war on rural poverty"..... You must mean FDR's "Raw" deal

Here you go again with a big ol' broad brush painting things as 100% wrong or right again. Investments in infrastructure, in this case bring electricity to places like the Ohio and Tennessee river valleys--thus increasing the standard of living, access to markets, and economy as a whole, were great. Other programs, not so much.

THe New Deal is the biggest sham in history.

I can think of much worse programs.

The War on Terror
The War on Drugs
Eisenhower's Interstate System
Urban Renewal
No Child Left Behind
etc
etc
etc
etc
etc

 

[irishpat183]

He's insinuating that the government wants more people on the dole so they can increase their power. That's what the "...wut" was for.

I don't at all agree with a causation there per se, but do I agree that the War on Poverty needs complete overhaul and is a massive failure. If that makes sense. haha

You don't think the government, run by guys who's sole purpose is to get re-elected, likes having people depending on them?

 

[GowerND11]

Who said she "deserves" it? The point is, even your girlfriend, has opportunity to turn her situation around.



And jesus man, she's had some nasty things thrown her way...god bless.

Right, everyone has the opportunity. She is taking full advantage of the opportunity. The way it comes across from some of the posts is that people who are poor are poor by choice, which while that can be true, is a broad generalization. Without these subsidies and grants and financial aids (some through colleges themselves, other federal) many would not be able to get out of the cycle. I guess my intent was that without some help, sometimes through the government, people will be lost to repeat the cycle.

And thanks. She is a trooper and determined as all heck to succeed. It's honestly one of the greatest (and attractive) attributes about her.

 

[wizards8507]

I have to say something about this not poor by accident thing. My girlfriend is currently homeless. Her father is in and out of jail for drugs (heroin I believe), and her mother has a warrant out for her arrest due to drug charges. Her uncle is on drugs (bath salts) whom she was living with until this year, and her brother ODed in February. She has nowhere to live. This isn't her fault yet some of you are claiming it is??? She is currently in college doing her best to get a degree to get out of the cycle, but she has nothing. She has to stay on friends' couches and at my house when she comes home for a weekend. She has $70 to her name. How can you not say someone like that doesn't deserve some kind of break (tuition aid, etc). I understand the premise of hard work and determination, but without some help those things are not obtainable. Wizard I understand you worked your butt off and feel that people can overcome poverty, but you also had a family to support you. While you may not have had much, that support system can do wonders, while other, like the kids Buster coached and my girlfriend, have never had that stability and support to make sure they do it the right way. Some stray, see Buster's case, while some do everything they can to not end like their families, see her. However, it can, without some kind of help, be almost impossible for many many Americans.

I wasn't specific enough. Children are in a completely seperate category, and none of the stuff I said applies to kids. Furthermore, your girlfriend has the option to skip college if it's not affordable at the moment and work. There are real jobs out there making real money that one can get without a college degree. If your girlfriend has the work ethic and character to make it through all of this with a can-do attitude, then she absolutely should have help, but the help doesn't need to come from the government. People equate "this should be done" with "the government should do this." I believe in helping the poor, but me helping the poor, my church helping the poor, Notre Dame helping the poor, the Aliance for Catholic Education helping the poor, or the South Bend Center for the Homeless helping the poor is MUCH MUCH MUCH more effective than the federal government helping the poor. Namely, the federal government flat-out sucks at it.

Charity is a virtue. Someone taking your money by force of law and doing charity with it on your behalf is NOT a virtue. "Give not under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."

Also, check out Mike Rowe's charity Mike Rowe Works.

 

[ACamp1900]

I agree. But, for an analogy, that doesn't mean you settle for 20% unemployment when you can get it to 4-5%.

I don't know Buster, it's a bold new world out there... there are 'new norms' thrown out there all the time...

 

[irishpat183]

Nuclear Power has saved 1.8mil lives from lung cancer, by merely reducing the coal consumption.



Jesus Christ how often do we go over this? The simple math is that it can work perfectly if it were left alone for the last fifty years--it wasn't, and if the necessary reforms were made to keep it an elderly poverty system and not a national retirement system.



Here you go again with a big ol' broad brush painting things as 100% wrong or right again. Investments in infrastructure, in this case bring electricity to places like the Ohio and Tennessee river valleys--thus increasing the standard of living, access to markets, and economy as a whole, were great. Other programs, not so much.



I can think of much worse programs.

The War on Terror
The War on Drugs
Eisenhower's Interstate System
Urban Renewal
No Child Left Behind
etc
etc
etc
etc
etc

....Exactly my point. Government can't help themselves. Which is why I don't want to give them another dime of my money in the name of some bullshit cause that they slap a sick/homeless child on the TV, then call me "greedy" for not being duped into thinking they give a damn.


And I totally agree with the war on terror and drugs. Horrific wastes of money.

Just like the war on poverty...it's just we love to tug those heart strings and make it seem "noble". When it's still government incompetence that's going to **** it up.

 

[phgreek]

I'm almost 100% opposed to estate taxes.
I don't trust the federal government to do a god damn thing correctly. But it doesn't help when one party keeps telling people that lower taxes are always the only answer, that it's only one's personal drive that causes success, and insinuate that if we ignore poverty it'll go away.

nor do I...

I think smaller more efficient federal government is always the answer...

Over the years tax cuts have had a stimulative effect on the economy. The bump in revenue from the economy allowed the government (multiple times) to avoid the questions the market always deals with...how do we become more efficient to handle demand on our resources, and maximize value(profit in commercial parlance) In fact we know there is NO incentive for government to do this based on how annual budgets are done...last year plus 3% is always the going in position of EVERY part of the Federal Government with a budget input...Instead of investing the windfall revenues in efficiency...we **** it away on growth for the sake of justification of out year budgets...This mentality is Grossly "entitled".

The fact that previous Tax cuts now find us revenue poor and politicians fight over revenue distracts from what failed...and what will continue to fail.

AS well....I don't like Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid...but I accept them...and I'll even defend them because people shaped their lives around these promises. But its silly to justify other and additional safety net spending BECAUSE we've survived the ones we have.

It is time to fundamentally transform the Federal Government..."America" wasn't ever the thing to try and transform....IMHO.

 

[wizards8507]

nor do I...

I think smaller more efficient federal government is always the answer...

Over the years tax cuts have had a stimulative effect on the economy. The bump in revenue from the economy allowed the government (multiple times) to avoid the questions the market always deals with...how do we become more efficient to handle demand on our resources, and maximize value(profit in commercial parlance) In fact we know there is NO incentive for government to do this based on how annual budgets are done...last year plus 3% is always the going in position of EVERY part of the Federal Government with a budget input...Instead of investing the windfall revenues in efficiency...we **** it away on growth for the sake of justification of out year budgets...This mentality is Grossly "entitled".

The fact that previous Tax cuts now find us revenue poor and politicians fight over revenue distracts from what failed...and what will continue to fail.

AS well....I don't like Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid...but I accept them...and I'll even defend them because people shaped their lives around these promises. But its silly to justify other and additional safety net spending BECAUSE we've survived the ones we have.

It is time to fundamentally transform the Federal Government..."America" wasn't ever the thing to try and transform....IMHO.

Let the people who shaped their lives around the promises keep them. Let the rest of us opt out. Keep the OPTION, but let us out. The liberals will counter "Paul Ryan wants to let Wall Street gamble with your retirement!" No, Paul Ryan wants to let you let Wall Street gamble with your retirement IF YOU CHOOSE to do so.

 

[irishpat183]

Let the people who shaped their lives around the promises keep them. Let the rest of us opt out. Keep the OPTION, but let us out. The liberals will counter "Paul Ryan wants to let Wall Street gamble with your retirement!" No, Paul Ryan wants to let you let Wall Street gamble with your retirement IF YOU CHOOSE to do so.

YES!!!

SS is NOT A RETIREMENT ACCOUNT. Nor is it guaranteed. Just look at a statement.


Wall street is still a better bet than SS. By a long shot.

 

[wizards8507]

YES!!!

SS is NOT A RETIREMENT ACCOUNT. Nor is it guaranteed. Just look at a statement.


Wall street is still a better bet than SS. By a long shot.

Burying bags of quarters in your back yard is a better bet than SS.

 

[irishpat183]

Burying bags of quarters in your back yard is a better bet than SS.

But too much work. I'll just sit back and let uncle sam take care of me..

 

[ACamp1900]

nor do I...

I think smaller more efficient federal government is always the answer...

Good luck with that one....

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

YES!!!

SS is NOT A RETIREMENT ACCOUNT. Nor is it guaranteed. Just look at a statement.


Wall street is still a better bet than SS. By a long shot.

People will eventually figure that out when it goes FLAT BROKE in 2030. And the program has been in place for decades. There will be protests in the streets full of people demanding what they are "owed." It'll look like the 2010 version of Greece.

 

[wizards8507]

I think smaller more efficient federal government is always the answer...

Good luck with that one....

Unlike a business, the government has no shareholders. Their "oversight" is the voter and their "incentive" is to get elected. Unfortunately, voters like "goodies." "Goodies" come from a wildly spending federal government, not a small and efficient one. The more free crap they give away, the more easily they get elected.