The Poverty of Nations
Is America ignoring its poor?
"What ever happened to poor people?" asks Katha Pollitt in The Nation. Everybody talks about the middle class these days, she writes, and nobody talks about the poor.
She's not alone. A few weeks ago radio host Tavis Smiley teamed up with Princeton prof Cornel West for a 16-city "Poverty Tour" whose aim was to "insert the word poverty into the American public sphere (where it rarely appears)." This is a common refrain on the left. If it's not NPR's Lynn Neary opining that Hurricane Katrina taught America we had been "ignoring poverty," it's The New York Times reminding everyone about America's "forgotten poor."
Pollitt wrote her piece shortly after the latest Census Bureau report showed a jump in poverty. Maybe you saw that story. It certainly was hard to miss. It got front-page treatment from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and plenty of other papers, and the equivalent from TV.
Hmmmm. Maybe only the East Coast liberal elite pays any attention to such data. Then again, maybe not. "Census Shows High Poverty Levels in Peoria," reported the Peoria Journal Star. "More Residents Sinking Into Poverty," noted the Seattle Times. "SD Children Impacted by Poverty," reported KDLT News in South Dakota. Those were just some of the more than 2,000 news stories on the Census report.
And yet the myth that America pays no attention to poverty lives on.
On the Daily Beast, you can read about "Women: The Invisible Poor." "Poverty Rising in America: Where's the Outrage?" asks Public Radio International, which reports that "the poor have become invisible" and approvingly quotes David Shipler, author of The Working Poor: Invisible in America.
Well, okay. If you want to get all technical about it, maybe the poor are not totally invisible. But they are faceless, right?
Wrong. We know what the poor look like, thanks to "Faces of Poverty" (CNN Money), "The Faces of Poverty" (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel), "Poverty in America: Faces Behind the Figures" (CBS News), "The New Face of Poverty" (USA Today), "New Faces of Poverty in Florida," (WFTV Orlando), "Faces of Poverty Changing" (Los Angeles Times) and many other efforts to put'"you guessed it'"a human face on the cold statistics.
And when Americans aren't reading about poverty statistics or the faces behind the statistics, they often are reading about awareness-raising "Homeless for a Day" projects like those that have taken place in Newark, Orlando, Richmond, Lubbock, Norfolk, Miamisburg, and too many other cities to name.
Americans also can pore over the latest academic study of poverty from Harvard's Joblessness and Urban Poverty Research Program. And the Stanford Center for the Study of Poverty and Inequality. And the Joint Center for Poverty Research at Northwestern and The University of Chicago. And The University of Kentucky Center for Poverty Research. And the West Coast Poverty Research Center at the University of Washington. And. . . .
And yet, we are told, nobody thinks about the poor.
Not long ago The Huffington Post reported that roughly 170,000 U.S. families are living in homeless shelters. Who set up those shelters? Elves? No, countless caring individuals and charitable groups did. There probably isn't a decent-sized church in America that doesn't have a program to help the poor. Countless more Americans contribute to secular anti-poverty nonprofits, from well-known ones such as Habitat for Humanity and the Children's Defense Fund to more obscure ones such as Hopelink and the Food Not Bombs movement.
And still we are told that "nobody cares about the poor."
The other day Cornel West showed up at the Occupy Wall Street protest with a sign reading, "If only the war on poverty was a real war, then we would actually be putting money into it." Funny. But the premise is flat-out wrong. In 2009 alone Washington spent $591 billion on means-tested anti-poverty programs. (Others, such as Medicare and Social Security, are not means-tested.) By comparison, 2009 federal appropriations for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were $130 billion. Since the War on Poverty began, Americans have shelled out more than $13 trillion to fight it.
They also give a lot of money on top of that. Moreover, as Arthur Brooks found in Who Really Cares, conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income to charity than liberals do. They also donate more time and give blood at higher rates. (Brooks set out to prove otherwise, and couldn't.)
And yet despite this'"despite 122 federal anti-poverty programs and hundreds of nonprofits and thousands of soup kitchens and millions'"billions'"of voluntary contributions'"despite all this, Americans are constantly being lectured about what a cold-hearted, mean-spirited, greedy, selfish bunch they are: "There are still poor people in America, or haven't you noticed?!" Americans have, and they do a lot about it.
Maybe more liberals should notice that. Perhaps, if they are ever struck by a fit of generosity, they might even say thank you.
A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch. This article originally appeared at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
In 2009 alone Washington spent $591 billion on means-tested anti-poverty programs.
Sayy whatt?
I would like to see the breakdown of how you get to $591 BILLION in anti-poverty funds. I'm not saying we don't but this is like a quarter of our entire budget.
You're thinking of receipts. Those are ~$2.1T. The federal budget is ~$3.5T. I don't know about his figures, but they're eminently possible. Wikipedia might have more for anyone bored and looking for something to do.
You're right, I was having a bout of wishful thinking. Still, at around $600 billion that's almost a fifth of our budget. I looked at the budget and you get $660 billion in discretionary spending. The breakdown of how that spending is divided is here-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Discretionary_Spending_by_Dpt_-_2010E.png
This doesn't add up to "$590 billion in anti-poverty programs". I am curious how one gets to that number.
You're right, I was having a bout of wishful thinking. Still, at around $600 billion that's almost a fifth of our budget.
In FY 2010, Medicaid took up a little over 8% of federal spending ($290 billion) ; unemployment and welfare took up 16.13% ($571 billion). So that figure is probably a low-ball estimate if only the latter is taken into account.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2.....ral_budget
Medicaid is definitely means tested, and Medicare is sort of means tested, in that premiums are higher for beneficiaries with higher incomes IIANM.
According to the wikipedia Medicare/aid combined cost $793B in 2010. Don't know how much Medicaid's share of that is. But it and food stamps and whatever replaced AFDC could easily be getting close to $591 billion, even if you don't count medicare as means-tested.
Mind you, while Medicaid is definitely sold as an anti-poverty program maybe Medicare doesn't qualify since its benefits go to primarily well to do people.
That doesn't stop any pol from screaming that poor old Aunt Maude will die without her Medicare living as she does having to choose between buying food and buying her drugs.
I guess that's more of what I'm wondering, in that you can take a variety of government programs that help poor people and slap an "anti-poverty" label on them.
Under these circumstances Social Security could also be labeled an "anti-poverty" program too, I suppose. In that case the number should be well above $600 billion.
That's why he said 'means-tested', tho, because those are actively targeted towards 'the poor', so SS wouldn't count, and Medicare wouldn't count.
DHHS estimated 2010 spending on Medicaid was going to be just over 400 billion.
https://www.cms.gov/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/proj2010.pdf
So that's a big chunk of 600 billion.
I'd like to know where he gets a measly $130 billion for the wars. That's on top of the $700 billion Pentagon budget, I guess.
That is the number the CATO Institute uses.
For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.
My phone doesn't even have a camera.
I'm underprivileged!
My neighbors have a bigger TV AND a better car. I'm feeling the shackles of middle class oppression dragging me down. WHEN WILL THE GOVERNMENT SAVE ME?
It's beltway common knowledge that the rich AND the poor are protected by government, it's the middle class that is struggling.
Of course this is an absurd way to look at things. If you're poor, you're by definition not privileged. People, including you people, talk about the poor as if they're a permanent caste who can only be given handouts, and not people who are, you know, poor.
actually, Tony, it is liberals who view the poor as a permanent class and, frankly, it is in the Dem's interest to keep them as such. Benefits that reward bad behavior and decisions are one way. No need to re-evaluate stupidity if one program or another will subsidize it, and Dem politicians always pander to the looter class.
The poor stop being poor through education, hard work, initiative, and sacrifice, things that liberalism has either destroyed (public schools) or discourages (anyone whose job earns a tidy living). Of course, that means telling people that govt is not salvation, something the left would sooner die than say. As it is, the poor poor pitiful poor have cell phones, flat screens, are more likely to be overweight than under, drive cars, are well-dressed, etc etc.
So let me get this straight. The way to end poverty is to make poor people pay for 13+ years of education when they got it publicly funded before.
But making people pay huge amounts of money for private education is just part of your grander scheme: an attitude adjustment for poor people. Yes, I'm sure that if poor people just start thinking positively, 9% unemployment will magically go down.
Do you have any data to back up your claims about all those trinkets poor people have that mean they're not really poor? Or are you just talking in stereotypes?
And poor people are fat because cheap food is dense and fattening. It's a phenomenon of wealthy societies that the rich are thin and the poor are fat.
Just think about what you're saying for a minute. We should cut our poor loose because they eat too much, and proper poor people are skinny (from starvation). I'll entertain your theories about not taking care of the more when we stop coddling the superrich as a country. Don't think we do that? Because if you're rich you obviously earned it, and if you're poor you deserve it, and public policy should be based on that kind of vulgar moral nannyism?
72% out of wedlock birthrate in the black community. 98% of said blacks vote for liberals. See a pattern here?
Only your racism.
If blacks have bad metrics, you assume something is wrong with blacks rather than that the bad metrics are a symptom of a larger problem.
The bad metrics are a symptom of liberal racism, fuckhead.
Liberals are racist against blacks, yet blacks vote for them 98% of the time?
Explain that without invoking racism, if you can.
Ask Herman Cain. He'll explain it to you in a way even you can understand.
The dissolution of the black family happened after the Great Society programs were passed and is overwhelmingly a very predictable symptom of those very programs.
So yeah - I assume those metrics are a symptom of a larger problem - statism.
Statism = support of the agricultural city-State (civilization.)
Fluffy is a Statist.
Questions?
@ Fluffy: No, the dissolution of the Black family happened after the U.S. forcibly and violently removed Africans from their homes and brought them to the United States and forced them into slavery. Any social protections since have been necessary in response to the dehumanization of African Americans by white oppressors, and their continued dehumanization by ignorant people like you.
Are you suggesting they'd be better off in Africa?
You do realize that the Zulu tribe were the most prominent slavers in Africa, right?
Elizabeth, I would be more than happy to help fix that problem by donating money to sending you and Tony back to Africa.
Two visions in conflict: One for individual responsibility and liberty, the other blaming society for imaginary ills (such as uneven income distribution), while convinced an elite brain trust can centrally manage away unfairness. Life is not fair. It starts with geography and includes uneven genetic distribution that effects intellect and physical prowess. Parenting also matters. Do you rage against pro athletes, celebrities, successful musicians and the likes of Steve Jobs as much as you do against the innocuous rich? For homework, read "A Conflict of Visions" by Thomas Sowell.
^^^
convinced an elite brain trust can centrally manage
Bullshit. You're the one who is into a managed mass society called agricultural city-STATE (civilization.)
But you and Sowell are stupid (or mendacious) enough to claim the State is a separate, divorcible entity of the agricultural city-STATE. That ain't so.
What Sowell is is a paid stooge for the agricultural city-STATIST establishment.
Very insightful. Please write a manifesto and post it here. It would help if it were long and contained a lot of capitalized phrases.
convinced an elite brain trust can centrally manage
Bullshit. You're the one who is into a managed mass society called agricultural city-STATE (civilization.)
But you and Sowell are stupid (or mendacious) enough to claim the State is a separate, divorcible entity of the agricultural city-STATE. That ain't so.
What Sowell is is a paid stooge for the agricultural city-STATIST establishment.
Pining
For my shack
Too many roads
Gets me down
Real freedom
Is dying of tetanus
And a tooth infection
In my shack
Root and weed soup
Good for the soul
Have it every day
In my shack
What the hell do "agricultural city-STATES" have to do with the price of tea in China? What is this, 2000 BC?
Social Darwinism is so 19th century.
"Do you rage against pro athletes, celebrities, successful musicians and the likes of Steve Jobs as much as you do against the innocuous rich?"
Thank you so much for pointing that out.
Bad metrics? The problem is that 72% of black babies are born to unwed mothers who, often as not, don't even know who the father is.
They don't care. Why should they? They know the father won't be around to support the child -- but the government will.
Those are cold, hard facts, not racism. Want to actually do something to help black America? Stop pretending that every honest observation is racism and instead do something constructive.
@Brubaker: do something constructive like what mother fucker? Stop being a racist dick. Most welfare recipients are single mothers regardless of skin hue. They need fucking help so they can feed their children and take them to the doctor. You can't fucking work if you can't afford a fucking babysitter. Without government help their children have a greater chance of going to prison which we pay for. If we can help them out then their kids have a better chance of getting off welfare.
"Without government help their children have a greater chance of going to prison which we pay for. If we can help them out then their kids have a better chance of getting off welfare."
Any links to support claims would be greatly appreciated.
Here's a thought, maybe these single mothers should be more selective about their relationships and stop poping out babies every 9 months.
Most people collecting unemployment actually aren't part of "the poor".
Statistically they may move into poverty for the duration of their period of unemployment (as I did occasionally in my early 20's) but that's different from being "the poor".
"The poor" aren't part of the unemployment data. "The poor" live in public housing or Section 8 housing. Overwhelmingly they live in female-led households with children where employment isn't even an option.
The biggest problem with our poverty programs isn't that they "coddle the poor". It's that they coddle a particular type of poor. The maximum benefits under our poverty programs (other than those directed at the elderly) are available to unmarried women with children. Unfortunately, unmarried women with children are also the least likely to be able to emerge from poverty, because the daily circumstances of their lives make it exceptionally difficult for them to obtain 9-5 employment.
If we want to decrease poverty in America, we need to do everything possible to roll back policies that increase the number of unmarried women with children.
We could start by having our existing antipoverty programs pay dramatically higher benefits to two-parent households than to single-parent households. That's counterintuitive, because the single-parent household "needs" the help more, but it's still the way to go.
We would probably also want to consider ending judicially ordered child support for all children born out of wedlock.
If we create circumstances where fewer women will choose to be unwed mothers, we will have a dramatically improved chance of reducing poverty.
Yeah, it's almost like there's a cause and effect or something....maybe an Iron Law that says if you reward something, you get more of it, and if you punish it, you get less*.
But I could be wrong...
*Thanks, RC
Do you really think women have children because of the financial benefits?
And I fail to see why we should punish children for the crime of being born out of wedlock.
The underlying assumptions here are all racist. Making normal assumptions about people, if you make it less financially burdensome for them to take care of their children and increase their mobility and ability to work, they will work more and do better for themselves. But if you assume they're popping out children to get government paychecks and will do everything they possibly can to remain as lazy as possible, you might be in favor of the "attitude adjustment" approach.
Unwed pregnancy is not the cause of the problem, it is a symptom of it.
Do you even know any black people? I've worked with many, and women receiving child support and men paying it was normal. As was having a relative in prison. My being married was a novelty to them. One guy I knew was going to school to be a social worker, because he said he knew people who were having children just to get a check.
The underlying assumptions here are all racist.
The underlying assumptions here are all true and supported by statistics and experience.
...if you make it less financially burdensome for them to take care of their children and increase their mobility and ability to work, they will work more and do better for themselves.
This is a bleeding-heart liberal fantasy. The reality is that when you subsidize someone's lifestyle, they become accustomed to having the crutch, and they expect some government mitigation to be there for virtually every needless bit of drama they get themselves mixed up in.
Tony, I invite you to spend almost a decade volunteering with poor people and a lifetime in the personal acquaintance of poor people. And you will realize that nothing is ever, ever their own fault. It's always the school's fault that their kids are worthless, stupid, violent thugs. It's always the landlord's fault that they get kicked out of their rentals. The government never gives them enough money. It's the police's fault that their car got impounded for DUI. They are always "trying to turn my life around," and always insistent that if someone just "gave me a chance," which would be chance #4,853,002, they could do just fine on their own.
I have a ton of anecdotes about what happens when you're dumb enough to "give them a chance" (i.e. let a homeless guy who boasts about being an expert car-detailer who used to run his own detailing business "detail" your car to make some money). Every last one of those anecdotes ends up with me doing damage control for their lying and/or worthless asses.
The poor are assholes, and with every dime we give them as a handout, we help make them that way. They are overentitled, whiny, smelly, violent, disgusting, lazy assholes.
Awesome post.
A ton of anecdotes doesn't equal an ounce of data.
I don't give a shit if poor people are bad people. We treat inmates with more social concern than you think we should offer the poor. Whatever the cause of their poverty, I don't believe in government punishing people for their sins, and especially not for "genetic inferiority."
You are an Olympic class idiot. As are all liberals.
Since when does caring about the poor make someone a liberal? The only idiots here are libertarians who think that they're views have any relevance to the real world.
Since when does caring about the poor make someone a liberal?
"Caring" is an emotion. Poverty programs require cash.
The only idiots here are libertarians who think that they're views have any relevance to the real world.
And liberals like yourself don't have any concept of math and its applications to the economy. It's easy to promote social justice when someone else other than you has to pay for it.
You're the fuckers who insist on measuring all sense of worth in dollars. And if caring is a means by which we give economic aid to the poor then they are related. I don;t know math like the geniuses running Wall Street. Fucking free market shitting all over my life every day.
You're the fuckers who insist on measuring all sense of worth in dollars.
And you're the fuckers screaming "GIB ME DATS!" when you don't get someone else's dollars. Maybe if you weren't so obsessed with other people's money, we wouldn't have to use it as the metric to measure your worth.
And if caring is a means by which we give economic aid to the poor then they are related.
It's easy to advocate for aid to the poor when you don't have to pay for it.
I don;t know math like the geniuses running Wall Street. Fucking free market shitting all over my life every day.
No, that's just your life in a nutshell--Wall Street's got nothing to do with it.
Here's something else for you, T-shirt:
It's total schadenfreude to see you goons trapped in desolate, rage-filled lives with only your own complaining voices to break the silence. Maybe you should have figured out that art history doesn't pay the bills.
So Tony, just out of curiousity, how much personal time and money do you volunteer to the poor? Seriously. You are obviously adamant about the government doing so (with other people's money, forcibly confiscated), so I assume you are an active champion in your community, working to eradicate poverty.
As someone who not only grew up poor but knows many poor people, you couldn't have described the poor any better. I especially like the point that its never their fault, if only... If I had a nickel every time I heard that one while growing up. Your comments remind me of the anecdote/character in Atlas Shrugged, the poor girl who marries Taggart, whose family are visionless, ambitionless leeches. I'm glad I got out while I did!
Uh, yeah, Tony... only black women have kids out of wedlock.
Making normal assumptions about people, if you make it less financially burdensome for them to take care of their children and increase their mobility and ability to work, they will work more and do better for themselves.
We've conducted a fifty-year-long, multiple-trillion-dollar experiment testing the validity of those "normal assumptions", and learned that they're, by and large, horseshit.
Actually, I think underclass women who would otherwise have children anyway do so in an unmarried state because the benefits are better that way.
A household of two parents and one child receives fewer benefits than a household of one parent and one child. For as long as that is the case, we should not be surprised if the family unit among the underclass remains broken.
And I fail to see why we should punish children for the crime of being born out of wedlock.
Actually I'm counting on fraud.
Set up the incentives the right way and people will just pretend to be married to get the benefits.
But I don't have a problem with that. I don't even have a problem if underclass women start claiming to be lesbians and get gay-married to form larger family units specifically to get higher benefits.
Two-parent households are just so much better positioned to escape poverty than single-parent households that I would be happy to see even total BS two-parent households spring up everywhere.
In addition, in a legal milieu where you couldn't sue for child support if you weren't married when the child was conceived, you would pretty rapidly "magically" see a vast reduction in the number of children born out of wedlock. Abortion is still legal, the last time I checked. Create a large enough negative incentive to childbirth outside of marriage and you'll see a lot less of it. Why was there a lot less of it before? Because women who engaged in it couldn't support their children. So they refrained. People aren't stupid, you know.
Once again Fluffy proves that Libertarians only support individual liberties of white males and only white males. I almost want to quit trolling due to the lack of self-awareness by know it all rednecks.
"Do you really think women have children because of the financial benefits?"
No. They have children because they are irresponsible. By bailing them out, you incentivize their irresponsibility and you wonder why you get more of the undesired behavior.
CAUSE...EFFECT
"Do you really think women have children because of the financial benefits?"
No. They have children because they are irresponsible. By bailing them out, you incentivize their irresponsibility and you wonder why you get more of the undesired behavior.
CAUSE...EFFECT
Racist! Racist! You're all racists! So I win.
"Do you really think women have children because of the financial benefits?"
No. From my firsthand observations, they do it because they don't fucking care what the outcome is.
Fuck you, t-shit.
Unwed pregnancy is a symptom of stupidity. Calling people racist for stating facts is also a symptom of stupidity, Tony. That dog doesn't hunt any longer. The so called black "leaders" and people like you have worn it out.
And proof of birth control or sterilization should be an unexceptable condition of receiving any public assistance.
The children of these single mothers on public assistance are overwhelmingly likely to grow up to do the exact same things that their parents did: drop out of school, start popping out babies as teenagers, make a lifestyle out of having their hands out and sitting on their asses waiting for checks from the rest of us.
Why would that be, do you think?
Incentives, something about which liberals know nothing. See; economy under Obama.
Why don't you tell us? We're clueless ones waiting for a post from you that makes some sense in the real world.
zero entitlement? LOL
Privation property land title is big government's primary entitlement to the privileged.
You too are an idiot. Millions of people came to America with nothing, and through hard work built themselves and their families a fortune.
Privation property is the agricultural city-STATE's primary entitlement program. Deal with it.
Privation property is the agricultural city-STATE's primary entitlement program. Deal with it.
And you're still too hopeless to live the shackbrah lifestyle you espouse. Deal with it.
Even if millions was a correct estimate and it's not it's still only a tiny fraction of Americans.
I'm left nearly speechless at Fluffy's blatant sexism and racism. I don't even know where to begin...but I'll just start by saying that I find your "family values" rhetoric despicable. Since the overtly racist Moynihan Report was released in 1965 (which spews the same sentiments Fluffy expresses), scholars have thoroughly destroyed the faulty argument that blames Black women for their poverty by suggesting that if they just got married, like we want them too, then maybe they wouldn't be poor. Ever pause to consider why Black women might not want to get married in the first place? Maybe because marriage has long been an institution intended to oppress women of all colors and extract labor from them?
scholars have thoroughly destroyed the faulty argument that blames Black women for their poverty by suggesting that if they just got married, like we want them too, then maybe they wouldn't be poor.
Scholars have destroyed a strawman they built up because it didn't fit the feminist narrative that "you don't need no man to raise a child!!"
Ever pause to consider why Black women might not want to get married in the first place? Maybe because marriage has long been an institution intended to oppress women of all colors and extract labor from them?
Tell you what--if feminists are so determined to carry out the ideology that a man is only good as a sperm donor and an ATM machine, then perhaps you'd be okay with a policy that releases men from any financial obligation to support whatever child the woman chooses to have. It seems only fair.
You're nearly speechless? Now you know how I feel. Why don't you go back and read your post. You are a world class moron.
Add to this Federal child care programs and work-place accommodations for single mothers. Maybe raise the minimum wage to a living wage.
Add to this Federal child care programs and work-place accommodations for single mothers. Maybe raise the minimum wage to a living wage.
Sorry, those things cost money. And LOL at your goonfiction that raising minimum wage to a "living wage" isn't going to do anything but inflate the cost of everything else to the sky.
Well it cost money to make money. Sorry the free market is an imperfect system. Which is why we have to start wars to secure cheap resources and maintain employment; and participate in political cronyism because without it the system would collapse.
Well it cost money to make money.
Translation: "MONEY COMES FROM ELVES AND WORMHOLES A BLOO BLOO BLOO!"
Free Market does not exist. U.S. society/economy is more correctly described as a mercantilist, corporatist, fascist welfare state. Central planning and collectivist mentality is the very cause of the problems which so many modern liberals think can be solved by using more...central planning and collectivst approaches.
Tony, since you are looking for some data, here's some research from the Heritage Foundation looking at the different conditions for so-called "poor households." It's really an eye-opening look at how "bad" the poor in this country have it.
Don't forget to mention that the Heritage Foundation is an incredibly biased, conservative organization that, in collecting and spreading data, seeks only that data which obviously supports it mission.
Yeah, I'm sure liberal organizations contain no bias and certainly never cherry-pick the data that supports their conclusions.
Good luck with that job picking up dog shit for society's real achievers with that Goon Arts degree after you graduate.
Keep living in your ahistorical dream world rock.
Keep living in your ahistorical dream world rock.
And keep cleaning out garbage cans for the city, you dumb striver poor.
If you don't like my country then leave asshole.
If you don't like my country then leave asshole.
If you don't like your life than jump off a bridge shitheap.
More mindless blather from Elizabeth the race baiter.
"Do you have any data to back up your claims about all those trinkets poor people have that mean they're not really poor? Or are you just talking in stereotypes?"
http://www.heritage.org/Resear.....is-Poverty
conservatives donate a higher percentage of their income to charity than liberals do. They also donate more time and give blood at higher rates.
It's not a donation unless someone is forcing you to do it. Haven't you heard?
Who set up those shelters? Elves?
I wouldn't put it past those sneaky bastards.
Elves? No. Underpants Gnomes, duh.
I'll bet that people who sell a lot of their plasma tend to be liberal, though, insofar as they have political philosophies.
They'll vote the way anybody who'll give them a bottle of Bali Hai says to vote.
So; who gives the guys who sell plasma the bottles on election day?
Hmmm... THAT might be a good libertarian cause for the Koch brothers. I'd donate to it, myself, though I couldn't give as much. I'd certainly support it.
Elves? HA! Elves would bitch and moan about their long luscious hair getting dirty! It was the great dwarves of Moria who built them damn shelters!
Despite 122 federal anti-poverty programs and hundreds of nonprofits and thousands of soup kitchens...
--------------------------------
so you're saying there is a lot of money in poverty.
If you're poor, you're by definition not privileged.
Au contraire Pierre.
At times in my life I have been "poor" using the Federal income standard.
But since I am white, male, straight, thin, "abled", etc., I have been routinely informed that I was privileged anyway.
People, including you people, talk about the poor as if they're a permanent caste who can only be given handouts, and not people who are, you know, poor.
Most "lifetime" poverty today (outside of that caused by disability) is the result of terrible, terrible choices we can all identify pretty easily, but which our government does all it can to subsidize and thus encourage.
Actually, most poverty is a result of western civilization.
"The life of an Indian is a continual holiday, compared with the poor of Europe..." -Thomas Paine
The poorest homeless person in the US is richer than the richest Plains Indian in 1491.
The average poor person in the US is richer than the average middle class European.
matters if you want freedom or a playstation, oh bootlicker of the agricultural city-STATE.
Hey, if you want to make the discussion about freedom, we can talk about that separately if you like.
But poverty is a matter of stuff. Period. And a homeless guy in New York City has access to a wider variety of safer food on a daily basis than any 1491 Plains Indian. He will be better clothed and warmer. He will sleep in a place that is warmer and dryer, merely by showing up somewhere and asking to be admitted. He can walk into any number of free museums and libraries and experience the entire world.
If you bopped a 1491 Plains Indian on the head and time-transported him to a random mall in any city in America including Gary he would think he had gone to the abode of the gods.
You worship your stuff then, city-Statist bootlicker. I prefer the freedom of a Non-State sociopolitical typology, one known as the Original Affluent Society, where needs were quite easily provided with much less work than we must do now.
NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES
faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf
Please be a spoof!
No, he's back. I saw his farewell post and figured he couldn't stay away. Fucking liar!
Since you hate stuff so much, please keep your yap shut about poverty in the future. Thanks.
But we can talk about freedom now for a while if you like.
Such as:
If I walked out of my house tomorrow bound for Los Angeles, it is overwhelmingly likely that I would make it the entire way without being assaulted, or robbed, or killed.
If I was a Plains Indian in 1491, if I traveled more than a few miles in any direction alone, I was subject to robbery and murder at the hands of members of other tribes.
Not to mention the constant danger from wild animals. I was only safe from wild animals to the extent that I could successfully kill them with a sharp stick.
If living in Hobbesian conditions and being as safe as you can make yourself using small-group violence is freedom, then the inhabitants of our worst prisons are also "free".
The whole Hobessian mythology has been debunked. It's a fable, like the creation myth. But you must consider lies as factual premises, otherwise, your economic ideology falls apart.
"War is a staple of civilization. Its mass, rationalized, chronic presence has increased as civilization has spread and deepened."
~John Zerzan
On the Origins of War
So come back when you're not spouting bullshit and have read some volumes like:
W.J. Perry, "The Golden Age," in The Hibbert Journal XVI (1917), p. 44.
Arthur Ferrill, The Origins of War from the Stone Age to Alexander
the Great (New York: Thames and Hudson, 1985), p. 16.
I Eibl-Eibesfelt, "Aggression in the !Ko-Bushmen," in Martin A. Nettleship,eds., War, its Causes and Correlates (The Hague: Mouton, 1975), p. 293.
The boolickers of the agricultural city-STATE must always rest their apologies on blatant lies.
Good Lord, if you love the primitive lifestyle so much - turn off your computer and go frolic in the woods. At least then we won't have to hear you blather on about the glory of hunter-gatherers.
Oh, and if you wind up scratching yourself making your primitive shelter don't come crying to us about your gangrene - Penicillin is a byproduct of the evil agricultural state!
Living a primitive lifestyle is not an option.
Officer, am I free to gambol across plain and forest? No?
Oh, right, your type killed all those people and put them in concentration camps.
Penicillin is for Diseases of Civilization.
But then you haven't read:
Health and the Rise of Civilization
Mark Nathan Cohen
Yale University Press
http://www.primitivism.com/health-civilization.htm
Perotonitis is a disease of civilization? Who knew that my appendix was part of the city-state oppression?
Living a primitive lifestyle is not an option.
So you keep claiming, but even the Unabomber was able to live the primitive lifestyle. There's plenty of BLM land out there for you to set yourself up on.
Oh good, you're back. Please, do go on about what deluded assholes we all are and how you have come to give us the straight dope on how much better everything was back in the hunting and gathering days.
give us the straight dope
Sadly, I don't think he has any straight dope left to give us. I think he already mainlined it all himself.
The boolickers of the agricultural city-STATE must always rest their apologies on blatant lies.
Says the manchild who gets his spiritual advice from a toothless shaman.
Fluffy, you have got to be the biggest fucking idiot I have ever seen. Really? Comparing a 1491 plains Indian to a poor person of today? WTF?! Who the fuck proclaimed that having "stuff" makes anyone happy? Just because your kids have an xbox and you have a cofee maker doesn't mean that life can't be completely miserable. You're such an uneducated moron.
So now being "happy" is the issue? The "poor" I've been spending my time around lately seem pretty pleased with themselves and the crimes they've gotten away with. Shit, they seem more comfortable in their skin than I do. Fail.
There's more to life than reading libertarian propaganda all day. Some people actually work and don;t have time to argue about why poor people suck all day. I don't have to work because my dad's rich but I heard it sucks.
Like reading liberal propaganda?
Eats more regularly, too. And is fatter. And doesn't have to exert himself as much.
fluffy your right on. a few times i have been poor, stayed in my and even lived in a metal shed in my friends yard. young at the time. i lifted my self out of poverty by hard work and planning. never done drugs. i finally got a degree at 44 yrs old
Fifteen or so years ago when I was living paycheck to paycheck my employer went out of business.
For the next six months I was homeless as I worked two jobs trying to put money in the bank, which ain't easy (saving money) when you don't have a kitchen or laundry (eating out and laundromats ain't cheap).
Eventually I saved up for first, last, and deposit, and got a place.
Man was that an eye opener. I observed two kinds of homeless. The ones like me who were working to get out, and the ones who were content with the lifestyle.
That's the thing that liberals refuse to understand or accept: Some people actually like the freedom of not being married to a home and/or job.
Racist.
Perhaps, if they are ever struck by a fit of generosity, they might even say thank you.
Liberals are generous with other peoples' money, not their own.
I've yet to hear a single conservative offer to pay higher taxes to pay down the deficit. Seems that everyone wants to pay with other people's money.
That's because conservatives, unlike liberals, want to spend less.
That' what normal people do. They pay off debt by spending less on other things and putting the difference towards their debt.
That's what I'm doing right now. I can't remember the last time I ate steak.
"Spend less" being a euphemism for "taking medicare and social security away from people." Other people's money.
"Taking medicare and social security away from people" being a euphemism for "stop taking money from working people and giving it to retirees."
HAHAHAHAHAHA!
Good one.
News flash:
No matter how hard asshole leftists try to rhetorically transform the expectation of the proceeds of theft into "property", we aren't buying it and neither is anyone who isn't a moron.
So money in your hands is yours, universally and without question, but the money in retirees' hands--legally put there by government policy--is yours too.
You're still a hypocrite for bitching about liberals spending other people's money. If you want to pay down the deficit, you're welcome to write a check to the IRS.
So money in your hands is yours, universally and without question, but the money in retirees' hands--legally put there by government policy--is yours too.
Actually, yes.
Absolutely.
I have no problem with that statement whatsoever.
legally put there by government policy
You know what else was legal government policy?
And throw us up a little spirited defense of assassination by Executive decree (re: Anwar Al-Awlaki) since government policy is now unquestionable and holy.
But according to Tony there is no difference between taxes to fund courts and defense (protection of property), and taxes for the explicit purpose of relieving people of their property because someone else is more deserving.
No difference at all between protecting property rights and ignoring property rights.
Protecting and ignoring are the same thing.
But coming from the guy who honestly believes that not giving equals taking, and not taking equals giving, this does not come as a surprise.
I don't factor "deserving" into it at all. You're the moral busybody, not me. I prefer a secular government.
I'm saying courts and defense are social services, and so is a safety net for the poor. They are not distinguishable on any fundamental level. You are just OK with taxes paying for the former but not the latter, even though the taxes are taken in exactly the same manner.
They are not distinguishable on any fundamental level.
The fundamental purpose of one is to protect property rights, the fundamental purpose of the other is to violate property rights.
They fundamentally contradict one another.
I'd call that a fundamental distinction.
First, that makes no sense. The taxes are taken in exactly the same manner. One can't be a violation of property rights while the other is not.
Second, a government that only protects property is a bad government--there are plenty of people without property who still need a government.
Purpose. Look it up.
And I didn't say only.
Nice straw man. Go suck its dick.
I'm saying courts and defense are social services, and so is a safety net for the poor.
If the poor don't want to pay for their safety net, then they don't deserve it.
Um, they're POOR.
Um, they're POOR.
So? If I want food, I have to pay for it myself. If I want housing, I have to pay for it myself.
If they don't want to pay for it, they don't deserve it.
I'll go with the old standby here:
Letting me keep my money =/= taking it away from someone else.
So some retiree's Medicare check is "your money"? Says who?
So some retiree's Medicare check is "your money"? Says who?
Where does the money for that Medicare check come from? Is the amount of money they're allowed really no more than they spent their lives paying in?
So some retiree's Medicare check is "your money"? Says who?
It's certainly not theirs--or haven't you heard of Fleming vs Nestor?
If he's taking out more than he paid in, it IS my money, YOU FUCKING IDIOT!
Ok. This has been bugging me. I'm familiar with a number of programming languages and I've never run across "=/=". I know ~=, !=, /=, .ne., "not equal" and <> from various languages.
Where did "=/=" come from?
Where did "=/=" come from?
My head. It looked good to me while I was typing it, forgive me if I did it wrong.
"=/=" is the poor man's ASCII equivalent of UTF-8 U+2260, "not equal to" "?". The geekish way, cribbed from C and all its descendant languages, is "!="; Pascal and its descendants prefers "".
That didn't come out right because I forgot that this forum supports minimal tags. Pascal likes "<>".
Ahh. I see it's representative of the mathematical inequality symbol ?. That makes perfect sense. Too many years talking to computers I've forgotten real mathematics.
I had more than one college course where the professor would draw a slash across the equals sign when it was found that the two things were not equal, so I assume the "=/=" is an attempt to replicate that using the characters that are available.
It looks like the antiquated "equals sign with a line through it" used back when we'd do math on paper.
@ Tony
This may address some of your concerns: What About the Poor?
Chewbacca Shaves is harming others by not eating steak lately? God, now I see why others just don't pay attention to you any more. You're a fucking idiot.
Oh, is the government offering to use new revenues to reduce the deficit? Last I heard they wanted to jack up taxes to write more checks to old people.
Just when I think Tony can't get any more ridiculous, he outdoes himself.
Every dime sent to the feds gets spent, but it's never enough, so they continue to borrow against my grandchidren's future.
Dear Tony,
People, including you people, talk about the poor drug addicts/alcoholics/child abusers as if they're a permanent caste who can only be given handouts treatments, and not people who are, you know, poor drug addicts/alcoholics/child abusers.
Most of the poor are pretty hard working. Nice try, Sparky.
"More than three billion people, nearly half of humankind, live on less than two-and-a-half U.S. dollars per person per day. Studies have shown repeatedly that the main and often the sole asset of the poor is their labor."
Working Hard, Working Poor
A Global Journey
Gary S. Fields
Oxford University Press
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/.....0199794645
And of those more than three billion people, how many live in a civilized country? How many live in the US?
Nearly every square meter of Earth has been invaded and occupied by the agricultural city-State (civilization.) It's all civilized, save for a few "uncontacted tribes" on the most marginal of land unsuited to the agricultural city-State.
Civilization makes most people poorer, while benefiting those on top of the big hierarchical pile.
Help! The White Imbicile has returned! Help!
Abandon hope, all ye who enter [HERE]
Most of them live in countries where there is little or no economic liberty.
There are so many rules and regulations that it is nearly impossible to start a business.
As a result if you don't have the coin to bribe the government bureaucrats, you can't start a business.
No entrepreneur, no small businesses, and you get institutionalized poverty.
But don't you worry your little head.
As Tony and his progressive ilk continue to create barriers to economic activity and destroy wealth, we'll be a third world hell hole soon enough.
Most of them live in countries screwed over by the hierarchical elite. Never heard of an Economic Hit Man?
Agent 47 must be busy.
Poverty is not a certain small amount of goods, nor is it just a relation between means and ends; above all it is a relation between people. Poverty is a social status. As such it is the invention of civilisation.
~Marshall Sahlins
The Original Affluent Society
Poverty is not a certain small amount of goods, nor is it just a relation between means and ends
Only to morons.
Yeah, you would find dictionary definitions moronic.
pov?er?ty: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions
~Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Merriam-Webster has fallen prey to the machinations of scumbags who want to manipulate language as a tool to achieving expropriatory social ends.
Oh well. It wouldn't be the first time.
There is no social development that can possibly occur that will ever create a set of circumstances under which a person living Bill Gates' current lifestyle is "poor". But that would have to be possible, and indeed inevitable, for a "relative" definition of poverty to be valid.
There are people in the world who want the definition of poverty to be socially-relative because they want to be able to continue to steal in the name of the poor even when everyone's basic subsistence needs are met and then some. It's no more complicated than that.
Rage against the dictionary! LOL
Hey, if it was good enough for Malcolm X it was good enough for me.
Or is it still cool for "black" to mean "evil"?
I'm more nigger than thou.
"Elizabeth Dodson Gray, in her book "Green Paradise Lost", suggests that much of the reason has to do with our hierarchical model for the spiritual and physical world. She draws a pyramid depicting the following categories, in descending order: God, men, women, children, animals, plants, and nature. Each category has dominion over the ones below."
GREEN PARADISE LOST (formerly: Why the Green Nigger?)
by Elizabeth Dodson Gray (1981)
http://www.amazon.com/GREEN-PA.....000GSIAPI/
I'm more nigger than thou.
You certainly spew out enough shackbrah bix nood to make that claim.
CORRECTION:
Order -->Nature (Whatever the fuck that means), Microbes, everything else
WHITE INDIAN IS BACK!!!111!!1!1!!!! YAY!!!!!!!!!1!1!1!!!111!!!!
The finished renovations at the library.
It's too bad. There could have been some meaningful commentary here.
Max and Orel Hazard have also come back to haunt us.
Guess all their moms got together and kicked them out of their bedrooms.
[sniff, sniff]
Did somebody drop a White Indian in here?
They un-ban rather and White Indian returns...
Nah, must just be some strange coincidence.
Two completely separate flavors of crazy.
Now White Indian's dropping n-bombs. Dude's as out of control as ever.
He's just raging against the agricultural city-state that saves him from being a festering corpse out in the woods.
I'm not necessarily raging against the city-STATE.
But I am showing how intellectually bankrupt libertarianism is.
1. Property rights are based on aggression of the agricultural city-STATE and contradictory to the NAP/ZAP.
2. Agricultural Civilization, or the City-STATE is dependent upon the STATE. The "voluntary city" is an oxymoron.
But thanks for proving that libertarians are left with nothing but babbling personal attacks in the face of empirical evidence from anthropology and archeological studies of just how the agricultural city state developed.
But thanks for proving that libertarians are left with nothing but babbling personal attacks in the face of empirical evidence from anthropology and archeological studies of just how the agricultural city state developed.
Average lifespan of the shackbrah lifestyle: 30 years
Average lifespan of the agricultural city state: 75 years, and growing.
Yes, but it's a miserable, poor life that should never have been imposed on the needy!
In today's Columbus Dispatch there is the obituary for a 20 year old black man. He was born out of wedlock, and leaves behind three children, all born out of wedlock. Care to guess if he, his babymama, and the children are all poor? I take no blame for their plight, only for my own plight.
But should his kids grow up poor, you'll blame them for it.
No, fuckhead, I blame their parents. And the war on poverty that gave them the means to have children out of wedlock at a young age - you know, free housing, food, clothing, healthcare. Fuck you and the liberals who have created a permanent underclass, who have never seen an adult go to work.
I'm pretty sure it's their genitalia that facilitated their offspring, but it could be housing programs.
Poor people marry less frequently. That's not a shocking statistic. But their genitals work just as well. If you blame the parents for the children's state, how many generations back do we go? Prior to social programs for the poor, were black people doing just fine? Oh no, they were being systematically oppressed.
Maybe your "liberals made them lazy" theory has some holes.
Prior to your war on poverty, blacks had children out of wedlock at 25%. Today it's at 72%. Nice job. I don't think they will survive much more of your "compassion".
I had to look this up because I was just sure it was based on bullshit statistics voodoo. And it is!
There is a high rate of out-of-wedlock births among black women because married black women's birth rates have been declining at a fast rate--The black marital birth rate for blacks (in 2002) was 23.3 per thousand less than the white marital birth rate. This decline makes the unmarried birth rate seem especially high.
In fact, the birth rate for unmarried black women has been declining for 40 years.
Thanks for your opinion on the whys and wherefores. Just a reminder though that that didn't refute his stats.
You realize that's not the same as saying there has been a decrease in the number of unmarried black women with children, right?
There is a high rate of out-of-wedlock births among black women because married black women's birth rates have been declining at a fast rate
No, no - it's much simpler than that. But I'll let you try to figure that out on your own.
You're the one performing statistics voodoo by using the birth rate per thousand.
The birth rate per thousand has been dropping for ALL women.
What's relevant here is the family composition percentage. Are more women heading single-parent households now than did so in 1965? Because if so, it doesn't matter if the birth rate of that group of women drops per thousand, if that decrease is offset by a massive increase in the numbers of such households.
Yet birthrates for unmarried black women have been declining for 40 years. Explain that with your Great Society attitude problem theory.
I have to assume you completely failed to read my post. That's not surprising, because you are stupid.
Consider 2 societies:
Society A has 10 women total. It has 2 women who are unmarried who have 3 children each.
Society B has 10 women total. It has 8 women who are unmarried who have 2 children each.
Society A has a higher birthrate for unmarried women.
Society B has a much larger problem with out of wedlock births.
If you can't see that, you are seriously math challenged and should have your high school diploma stripped away because you obviously cheated to get it.
I had to look this up because I was just sure it was based on bullshit statistics voodoo. And it is!
The Center for Disease Control produces bullshit statistics voodoo?
Your argument is about as factual as your math.
He has no argument. He has guilty emotions.
Actually, poor people used to have fewer children, also, before we started actively paying them bonuses to have children out of wedlock.
Because that's what we're doing. You realize that, right?
There were poor people with genitals in 1920 New York, too. We somehow did not end up with giant housing projects full of single-mother-led households in 1921.
So if poor people have always had genitals, but current family demographics only came to be after the Great Society programs began...
Hmmmmmmmmm what could it be what could it be......
Cause and effect.
How does it work?
Your anti wealth dogma is what keeps people poor. Actually why are you here, shouldn't you be with your kin trying to occupy wall street, don't you care for the poor ?
Your give-financial-banks-everything-they-ask-for-and-it-may-trickle-down-some-day dogma isn't doing a hell of a lot for them either.
Like I said why are you here, don't you care where is your sense of solidarity. These people must inspire you with their clarity of message, their dignity and the bright future when the take power, you must be brimming with pride.
Tony, the opinion here was the banks should have gone broke, that the idiots who made bad loans as well as those who took them should live with the consequences, including if any fraud or othe malfeasance was proven being prosecuted. I don't recall anyone from the libertarian cohort here supporting bailouts.
I don't know what blogs you were reading from 2001 to 2008, but it's obvious H&R was not one of them if you think anyone here is in favor of "give-financial-banks-everything-they-ask-for" or a big fan of George Bush.
If you want to argue with people who believe that you should go to a different blog.
As to who is in favor of "give-financial-banks-everything-they-ask-for", yes, GWB signed TARP (also NCLB and drugs for geezers, both of which he was raked over the coals for) but Congress voted for it including a certain then-Senator from Illinois and the majority of Democrats in bothe houses, while less than half of Republicans in either house voted for it.
You heard the saying "a pox on both their houses", well that pretty much prevails here. And since you support all of the worst policies of both their houses you are about the poxiest fuck ever.
Congratulations for being against TARP. What are your feelings on parasitic roundworms?
When one libertarian supports raising one tax on anyone above the poverty line, I'll amend my assumption that you're just plutocrat enablers masquerading as freedom lovers.
Our assumption that you're a fucking thief will not change.
You know in the the problem with you is that you just don't even make sense.
Someone who supports every fucking government handout in the book from direct subsidies to targeted tax breaks has a hell of a nerve calling anyone a plutocrat enabler.
Oh right, you really believe that all of those cronies taking the handouts only want the money to help the workers.
You assume that taxing the productive will help the poor. 50 years of evidence say otherwise. But then, intensions are all that matters.
Ah the "productive." Nice morally judgmental euphemism for "rich people."
Roundworms? Roundworms!?!?!? You miserable bastard. I just got my ass handed to me on a Parasitology exam and you have the gall to bring up roundworms????
Regardless, you really are the No True Scotsman king. As if you, of all people, get to define freedom. Libertarians don't support raising taxes on anyone below the "poverty line" either. Does that make us class warfare rabble rousers? You really are that stupid. Shame on me for responding, I know.
Taking away safety net programs is effectively a tax hike.
Taking away safety net programs is effectively a tax hike.
Show your math.
- (minus)
@Isaac Bartram
+1
I don't recall anybody here cheering when banks were given bailouts in fact it was the opposite. but as usual you are blaming the wrong people it was the government that gave the banks the money. the government run by both then and now by a bunch of idiots who cow tow to their request. no body held a gun to their head but they felt it neccesarry and a lot of those people are on both sides of the aisle.
And Tony will assess no blame, but will offer the welfare checks that will both salve his guilty conscience and keep the kids poor forever.
This nation has FAT 'poor' people with color TV's, computers and Ipods.
Poor? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Those who are actually are poor may be really 'poor' by historical standards. We define poor as $10.9K/year or less. Really? That is $28.4/day.
The poor in other countries are running at $2/day and less. We define poverty as something that is 1500% higher?
Look at the poor elsewhere, they are skinny. The wear rags. They work like hell. Ours are fat, have wardrobes, and stay home and wait for a check.
Guess who deserve sympathy? Guess who wants a hand out?
pov?er?ty: the state of one who lacks a usual or socially acceptable amount of money or material possessions
~Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Poverty is not a certain small amount of goods, nor is it just a relation between means and ends; above all it is a relation between people. Poverty is a social status. As such it is the invention of civilisation.
~Marshall Sahlins
The Original Affluent Society
$10/K a year is not poor? You can only start to sympathize with people when they're starving?
Why should I think that if we had mass starvation, you wouldn't be blaming them for their lot and bitching about them asking for handouts?
Poverty should be measured relatively. You don't get to say, "well you'd be doing just fine in the stone age!" and leave it at that. We're not in the stone age. If you have no opportunity for upward mobility then society has failed you, and it's not your fault.
You don't get to say, "well you'd be doing just fine in the stone age!" and leave it at that.
Maybe not the Stone Age, since that was a time of universal poverty and misery, but what about, say, the 1940's?
And what do we do about relative comparisons where the operative difference in status is nothing other than the proximity of the poor? For example: In 1993 I lived in a studio apartment. I had a beat-up car. I ate bad food that I cooked for myself. But it would have been silly to call me "poor". Why was my life much better than that of "poor" people who also lived in small rented apartments and drove beat-up cars and ate bad food? Because they had to do it in poor neighborhoods. But that sort of "hell is other poor people" problem doesn't really seem like a pressing issue of justice to me. If all poor people had simultaneously stopped being dicks, living in SE Washington DC would not have been that much different than living in a shitty apartment in Bethesda MD.
Tell us what "pay your fair share" means, Tony. You still haven't given us a percentage.
Is it half of every dollar earned? More? Less?
Pony up your figures. C'mon, it's not that hard.
Would it be ok if a single person owned all the resources of the earth, renting them out to the rest of the lower human beings?
No? Can you tell us how widespread the wealth of the earth should be? How many owners? A dozen? A hundred? Maybe a percentage?
Pony up your figure. C'mon, it's not that hard.
Enough to provide for the things society needs and wants without changing the lifestyle of anyone.
Enough to provide for the things society needs and wants without changing the lifestyle of anyone.
Show your math.
We don't need his math. His answer showed his colors.
Won't work, Tony. But *do* lecture us about utopianism.
Here here on the realtive measure of poor. I have next to nothing compared to Warren Buffett, so why am I paying 35% in federal income taxes?
As someone else asked, do you actually know any poor and/or black people? I do. I know you hate anecdotes, but I'd love to hear some from your educated perspective.
Starving? According to the last Census, every respondant stated that their children never went to bed hungry. So they were lying? Too what purpose?
Funny enough when I ask Tony why the "poor" in America who are considered rich in other places, and why the money should not go to the really poor, then his retreats into his nationalist shell.
typical libtard debating style:
1. Declare that non-liberals make no sense, because, well, uh just because
2. Under no circumstance ever answer the question -- answer a different question if you must, better to just insult or change the subject
3. demand that others who are not lame, stupid or lazy 'pay their fair share' How much is that? Go see Pt2
4. When all else fails, demand civility, and end this demand with an ad hominem attack
5. repeat, rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat, ...
*Those who are actually HOMELESS are poor*
I don't really blame anyone for being poor.
Right up until the point where they stick their hand in my pocket.
Or invade and occupy the land. Because that takes aggression too. Your masquerade is thin.
Oh, no - right out front. Yeah, you "invade", I'll push back. Seems fair.
Now run along and play on the pampas or something. But stay out of my yard unless you're invited.
I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but I'll give you this little snack, just this one time:
Shit happens, and lands get invaded and occupied, and the original residents get enslaved, eliminated, or marginalized. Conquest happens everywhere, eventually. It happened to Rome, it happened to Greece, it happened to the Britons. Someday, the Chinese will come over here and "call in their debt," and they'll have us all fitted with surprisingly inexpensive and well-made Borg eyepieces.
A bunch of brown people with Stone-Age weaponry were sitting on 6,000 square miles of vast natural resources. WTF did you think was going to happen?
Shit happens, and lands get invaded and occupied
Ah, yes, the rapist apologists. Funny how Fibertarians start sounding like the same sort of city-STATISTS that any neo-con is.
Funny how caveman-wannabes start sounding like the same sort of blubbering GRIDS-ridden twink that any SWPL is.
Phrased thus, the author already cedes his argument.
This, of course, is the left's rhetorical trap.
1. The measure of "poverty" keeps changing, thanks to faceless advocates working out of sight.
2. The measures of "poverty" don't take into account public and private transfers in kind, like food stamps and Medicaid.
3. Poverty is often a euphemism for ignorance. Half the students in Los Angeles don't graduate from high school--of course they will be poor.
4. Poverty is also a result of social pathology--crime causes poverty, both for perp and victim.
5. Foolishness also causes poverty. Post-grads in 17th century French poetry OUGHT to be poor.
OTOH, is IS true that no one pay attention to these simple facts of "poverty"
The measure of "poverty" keeps changing...
Simple facts? Because you say so, eh?
It's hilarious that dictionary definitions are regarded as so inconvenient in a den of "reason."
Poverty definitions do change over time, and are also differently defined all over the world, it is the easiest fact to verify idiot.
I know the "fire water" doesn't agree with your body chemistry, but now that you've said that, you gotta
DRINK
Every time a so-called advocate for the so-called poor is forced to publicly make explicit the fact that they consider poverty relative and not absolute, somebody somewhere says, "Oh really? Fuck that shit."
So I'm happy to argue with you about relative poverty all day long. Please, keep that discussion out there. Enter into it everywhere you can and as often as you can.
Shit. I forgot that I promised myself I wouldn't engage with White Injun. Hmmm - for penance, I'll ride my motorcycle more this week.
PS No, it's not an "Indian" - it's a Kawasaki.
You've got the big Kawi, don't you, Almanian? I'm seriously thinking about dumping my Triumph for one of those here shortly.
Enjoy the wind blowing through your ears.
if you havent worked in 20 yrs you are probably going to be considered poor. i know a poor people who like living the way they do. some are relatives. once someone has been on welfare for 20-25 yrs they are mostly worthless. when they get into thier 60's they still will not have worked and never paid into ss then they will get more money by getting on SSI. i know 20yr meth heads now on SSI. the system will collapse
I know someone has never worked in his life and then proudly boasts about his holiday in Spain. Not a good motivator when somebody who lives on welfare goes to Spain, while I have to work.
I made less money then a friend who is on unemployment. He paid a $1000.00 in taxes and I owe $6000.00 in taxes how the hell is that fair. I'd be better off if I quit but since I'm self employed I couldn't collect unemployment even if I had to.
Everybody's got a problem with the agricultural city-STATE's (civilization's) organization of mass society.
Libertarians in particular do.
So comical that they don't understand civilization constitutes a single cultural package.
Agriculture. City. State. It's one system.
Raging against the stupidity of the State, while thinking it can be divorced from the whole package is like thinking airplanes can fly without wings.
Stupid domesticated poodle-think.
Stupid domesticated poodle-think.
Said the GRIDS-ridden SWPL twink who consults with a booga-booga shaman for guidance.
How dare you racists refer to anecdotes! Personal experiences and observations are not to be a part of this discussion. (Saved you a post, Tony)
I don't factor "deserving" into it at all. You're the moral busybody, not me. I prefer a secular government.
You are such a fucking child.
Are you capable of thinking even through the implications of the things you say even ONE LEVEL?
If there is no such thing as "deserving", then if I kill you and eat you and take ALL your property and that of all your relatives today, I've done nothing wrong.
Because I haven't taken from you anything that you "deserved".
If there is no such thing as "deserved", then there is no reason to have governments at all and no justification for having governments at all.
I realize that because you're a moron you think that you can replace the concept of "deserved" with "the government says so" as in "the government says retirees should have this monthly check so that means they deserve it and their expectation of future receipts is a type of 'property'," but that doesn't help. At all. In the absence of a concept of "deserved", why should I care what the government says? It would all be completely arbitrary and without foundation and of no import whatsoever.
He likes to accuse others of making moral arguments (as if having morals is a bad thing). At the same time he will make his own moral arguments somehow pretending that they are not moral arguments, but the gospel truth.
I think people "deserve" a minimum standard of living, period. They can be upstanding citizens or serial killers. I'm just not interested in making tax or social policy around some quasi-christian concept of sinners and saints, especially when your moral handwringing amounts to wealth=virtue and poverty=vice. Too easy to make the small leap to saying we should reward rich people for their virtue and punish poor people for their vice, or Republican economics.
Deserves got nothing to do with it.
But I was building a house.
So now you suddenly believe in "deserving", are here to break records on how fast you can contradict yourself. Please go and join those losers playing the bongo drums at wall street, you will be happier there, you really will.
That's why I put it in quotes. It's not a moral judgment, it's a humanistic one.
What bothers me is that even if you concoct a racist explanation for why blacks do worse than whites (i.e., they are genetically inferior) why does it follow that we should judge them and then have society punish them for that? Do we throw Downs syndrome babies to the streets and blame them for their failure to find a job?
Like I said, morals are a dirty word for, but somehow humanistic morals do not count as morals, stop contradicting yourself.
I judge people as individuals, you judge them as voting blocs. There are no epidemics of Downs syndromes babies, rather one of lazy bongo drummers who would not take a job cleaning toilets at the office, because it is "beneath them". I help those who really need it, not spoiled brats who want free stuff for doing nothing.
Please join your incoherent bongo drummers they will welcome you with open arms and even provide you with free food, don't you want to be happy ?
Tony won't tell us what the magic tax rate should be on that bunch of evil people who make over two hundred grand a year... do you expect him to be able to tell us how everyone should have a minimum standard of living, without regard to them having a job or not?
I would love to see if the libtard can at least define 'minimum standard of living'. Since he brought it up and then went into some anti-morals tirade about Christians etc.
Once on Stossel's show he had guests on who were debating school funding. The school union idiot said his district was underfunded. John asked him how much would be adequate funding. The union stooge couldn't answer the question.
magical tax rates
magical invisible hands
magical markets
All magical thinking of the city-STATISTS.
You see the problem with your STATEment, don't you, White Indian?
@ Tony ? "explanation for why blacks do worse than whites"
From Affirmative Action, Negative Justice:
Downs syndrome babies are incapable of working. One is by chance, the other by choice. You can't see the difference?
"Do we throw Downs syndrome babies to the streets and blame them for their failure to find a job?"
I did once, but I felt bad about it later.
Tony|10.4.11 @ 1:12PM|#
I don't factor "deserving" into it at all. You're the moral busybody, not me. I prefer a secular government.
Tony|10.4.11 @ 2:55PM|#
I think people "deserve" a minimum standard of living, period.
Tony, what's Doublethink like? Seriously, I'm interested in what it's like to live in a mind that holds two contradictory beliefs without suffering any kind of cognitive dissonance. Your mind is fascinating, sort of like an M.C. Escher drawing made out of broken glass.
While I do contain multitudes, I'm pretty sure you can figure out the difference between moral judgment and concern for human well-being. There is going to be a set of axioms--call them moral if you like--at the heart of any political philosophy. Mine are just better than yours because they don't rely on magic.
My concern for human well-being extends to the precise point that they begin forcibly expropriating my wealth to fund their needs and wants. Right up to that point I'm exquisitely concerned with human well-being. Beyond that point you can all die in a fire.
Somebody has to prevent you from freeloading on their society. You're obviously not going to pay your fees on your own.
Somebody has to prevent you from freeloading on their society.
How? You've obviously gotten away with it for years.
Actually, I worked really hard on my English degree.
Mine are just better than yours because they don't rely on magic.
Oh Tony, if you weren't a sockpuppet, and my heart weren't as black as obsidian, my feelings might be hurt by that bare assertion.
Is America ignoring its poor?
With any luck.
With a good home security system and concealed carry, it's easier to ignore them. But they prey on the productive, so at some point you will have to deal with them.
VA has an open carry law. Its fun. Really.
I've heard that open carry is the law in all states. One guy had his holster on, in plain sight, and was attacked by a cop who didn't know the law.
Umm, no. So stop thinking that.
Ok, but what about gun racks in pickup trucks?
Different states, different laws. My dad once got a ticket in Washington State when he was hunting up in Northeastern Oregon. They crossed the boarder in his pickup, with his gunrack, to stay in a hotel in Washington. A cop saw the gun rack, and wrote him a ticket.
I don't know what the laws are now, but that was then.
If that happened today, your dad, forgive my insensitive honesty, would probably be an unrecognizable batter of flesh and blood at the local morgue, made that way by a barrage of bullets from the local PD's SWAT team's assault weaponry.
Laws don't mean shit in some places when it comes to cop, as we've learned. As much as I love guns, I wouldn't be willing to take any chances like that.
Let's see...there is an increase of poor...where did those folks come from? (Hint: middle class)
You know, to a great extent, we are arguing with ourselves. The fact is we live in a rigged system with a sub-class which is permanently protected from the vagaries of existence who have been able to put themselves in a position where they can not and will not ever lose. This class is distinct from those who through their own industry have achieved life security. The interference of government is what created this protected sub-class and maintains it. Likewise, the interference of government has also produced another sub-class which is permanently dependent on government and tax dollars for their subsistence.
It is from both of these sub-classes - those at the bottom and those skimming off the top - that government derives its sanction. I am certain that vast disparity in wealth that exists in this country where there is a huge concentration of wealth at the top and a huge concentration of dependency at the bottom could not exist were it not for government and its simultaneous agendas, protecting the interests of the ruling/governing class while maintaining a permanent dependent class.
Government at all levels serves, primarily, the interests of the governing class - examples would be hundreds of millions to build stadiums for team owners and the use of eminent domain to enrich those with influence and corporatism in general - while creating and maintaining a dependent class. Libertarians do a very poor job of distinguishing between the wealthy governing class and the notion of wealth in general. Often times you find libertarians both defending and attacking the wealthy and this gets confusing to people on the outside.
You hear libertarians attacking crony capitalism and corporatism while defending the rights of corporations. To others it sounds like we are schizophrenic. What we need to be defending is free market capitalism and attacking anything that isn't that. There is nothing wrong with great wealth, but there something wrong when that wealth can be used to influence policy to hinder competition and the entrench those at the top - corporate bailouts for example.
To often libertarians sound as though they are defending billionaires merely because they are billionaires. And let's be honest, many of the entrenched wealthy families became that way thanks to their proximity to levers of power.
I understand the "progressive's" point of view - that government should serve the interests of the underclass to the same extent as is does the overclass, which it clearly does not. What the progressive's do not see is that government is largely responsible for producing the underclass/dependent class.
I am convinced that in a genuinely libertarian society there would be far fewer multibillionaires and far fewer of those at the very bottom. And there would be very many more of us in between and there would be much more opportunity for anyone to escape poverty should they find themselves poor.
There is a reason why the agenda of the folks invading Wall Street is so muddled and confused. They all know something is wrong, but they can't understand exactly what it is. All they know is that millionaire bankers got millions of taxpayer dollars stuffed in their pockets after fucking up the economy in spades for the rest of us. They see there are no real consequences for these people for their terrible judgement. They just get richer. You get this weird mix of socialists and libertarians and God knows what else down there. I think this confusion is the result of deliberate obfuscation about the way government and the economy is actually run.
Here you have pro-Obama people down there - the same Obama who handed out hundreds of billions of dollars to the same people the protestors are going after. They still think Obama is on their side when, in fact, he never was. So, the system is fucked up and rigged, but it's rigged in such a confusing way no one can get a handle on it. They know they are mad and they know they are getting screwed, but they don't really understand how and why. It is intended that they don't and it is intended that no one can get to the bottom of what is really going on. It's turd balls all the way down.
So, anyway, this is my epic and I'm probably talking out of my ass, but I know that until we can get a clear picture of the way the game is rigged, there is no way out of it. And it is convoluted in such a way that no one can possibly get a clear picture. All the better for those who profit no matter which way the cookie crumbles.
It's the Federal Reserve. Start there.
Privation Banking. Privation Property. Works all the same: for the privileged.
Well said.
It's funny, Tony, because you don't have a fucking clue what poverty is. Not one fucking clue. Imagine this: looking west, then turning north, then shifting to look to your east, turning again to face the south, even trying up, and seeing nothing.
Absolutely nothing. You have nothing. There is nowhere to go. There is no way to improve your situation. There are no opportunities. You're in inescapable, lifelong shit. You were born in utter destitution, you will live in utter destitution, you will rot inside and out in utter destitution, and you will die in utter destitution.
You will starve, you will work the living shit out of your mind and your body, to breaking point, and die with little to nothing to show for a life of toiling in endless, mundane, unchanging labor, or, if you're fortunate, you'll just live in a deadlock that prevents you from becoming wealthier, making choices, being an individual. You're just a fucking ant. Nobody gives a shit about you. You can't do ANYTHING about it.
Standing in the middle of the road in Red Russia, trying desperately to catch a glimpse of another human being, of a working car, of an open shop (one with stacked shelves), of a single animal that hasn't been eaten by the homeless, and then realizing you're close to losing consciousness because there's nothing to eat, and that you're freezing your limbs off because your clothing is woefully inadequate for the climate, and that you'll probably bury your parents in an unmarked hole illegally because you can't pay for a wooden box kind of feels like that. It feels like ungodly shit. THAT'S poverty. THAT is being poor.
And the worst part of that scene is that you're not just a poor guy in a dynamic society of people that all have different levels of wealth that are unique, where there are chances, as you'd expect -- you're a poor guy in a sea of poor guys that have nothing to look forward to except maybe getting their quasi-salaries so that they can go buy medical spirit and drink themselves into a near-coma under the park bench and avoid reality for just another night. You're in a decadent, practically dead civilization. There's a shitload of gray and empty space, and not much else. It really IS like a dying colony of ants.
And that's not as bad as many other places. WE were comparatively lucky that way. Consider how many people live like that and much worse. Much, much worse. That's what I'd call poverty, Tony. That's truly being a poor person: you don't have anything, and there's no chance of moving upwards.
For a Satanically immoral, putrid little fucking degenerate piece of shit like you to crawl out of your fucking hole in the gutter, advocate the systematic, violence-backed theft of people's wealth, a civilizational abrogation of people's liberty and a wholesale evisceration of justice so that those who have not earned can thrive on the efforts of those that have, obfuscate, lie, attempt moral codification of your abominable beliefs, and disingenuously weasel your way out of that huge, shitty latrine you find yourself in at the end of every argument, Tony, well, it's unbelievable. It makes me sick to my fucking stomach. It's gut-wrenchingly disgusting.
Person after person after person after person has engaged you in debates, arguments, and investigative discussions. Legions of people on this very website have spent much of their time here explaining to you why they believe what they believe, and why you're wrong. And the thing is, Tony, you simply do not understand. You have not, you do not, and you likely will not. So what the fuck is the point?
So thank goodness for social institutions that decrease poverty?
You can't defend wealth to extent that it should never be taxed, and defend the rights of the poor at the same time.
Do our poor have it so fabulous because of capitalism? Or are they unable to be upwardly mobile because of socialism? Both seem to be the argument here.
I understand your arguments perfectly well, they just make no rational sense.
Reduce poverty?
Fuck, we've spent trillions on that War, and we STILL haven't won it.
Your essay is good, I like it very much. Here I would like to share with you some things :
Ugg Boots On Sale http://www.uggsukmall.com.
----xiaoxiaocai
There will always be poor people in America (or anywhere else), especially when you define poor relative to those with more money.
The Democrats work hard to raise the poverty threshold in order to capture more into the "poor class". By doing this, they are able to broaden their voting base..."we will fight for you. we will take care of you. we will create jobs for you. just don't you worry. just vote for me and it will be alright." The average "poor person" in America can provide food, shelter and clothing - if they could not it would be considered true poverty.
I was recently in Sao Paulo on business. Our driver became lost in one of the worst favelas (slum) in Sao Paulo. The level of poverty there was astonding. The family that can't make a mortgage payment on a loan they should not have qualified for, sitting in the living room with an iPhone, flat panel TV, three fat kids playing XBox....is not the level of poverty we should jump to take care of.
Have a look at the following report. Remember all of the silly information that we were asked to provide in the last census? Well, this helped load this report with surprising facts.
http://www.heritage.org/resear.....ricas-poor
If you counted support for social programs which accomplish the same goals often cheaper the same way, you'd find The Left far more charitable.
of course the issue of taxes, spending and such run into moral walls and issues of ownership and such and thus it cannot be resolved.
Thanks for the information that is being shared by you. I really appreciate the information and I really highly obliged that I came here and got to know about it.
Jennifer