Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 10-15-2010, 08:41 AM
 
1,062 posts, read 1,015,624 times
Reputation: 402

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
Sounds like a great many advantages of the military "socialist plan".

Housing paid for by tax payers, food paid for by tax payers, added "special pay" paid for by tax payers, full tax payer funded health care.

So all these socialized programs are good right? Just not good for anyone else?
Whether or not you think the military is a "socialist plan" is irrelevant to this thread. I believe you posted the salaries as a way to punch holes in Hawkeye's theory.

Since we see that salary plus benefits negates your poorly thought out poverty-stricken soldier analogy, perhaps you'd like to return to the topic at hand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-15-2010, 08:42 AM
 
9,855 posts, read 15,162,610 times
Reputation: 5481
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
Sounds like a great many advantages of the military "socialist plan".

Housing paid for by tax payers, food paid for by tax payers, added "special pay" paid for by tax payers, full tax payer funded health care.

So all these socialized programs are good right? Just not good for anyone else?
I simply was trying to keep you from posting misleading facts. You said military personnel live at close to the poverty line, which I proved to be flat-out wrong. I never spoke to anything socialist. Ideas on the socialist nature of military seem more appropriate for another thread. If you start one I would be more than happy to give my comments, however I do not want to derail this thread with such a tangent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 08:42 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,169,407 times
Reputation: 27718
Well throwing MORE money into social welfare programs doesn't work.
The more that gets thrown at them the more they need.

Maybe make it hard and embarrassing for them..get rid of food stamps and open "soup kitchens" and food pantries instead.

Just seems handing them money (via food stamps, welfare, etc) isn't working.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 09:06 AM
 
11,135 posts, read 14,150,169 times
Reputation: 3696
Quote:
Originally Posted by MainelyJersey View Post
Whether or not you think the military is a "socialist plan" is irrelevant to this thread. I believe you posted the salaries as a way to punch holes in Hawkeye's theory.

Since we see that salary plus benefits negates your poorly thought out poverty-stricken soldier analogy, perhaps you'd like to return to the topic at hand.
Why, others have pointed to the resources and social programs provided by the government that those at or near poverty have access to that those making more money do not.

HeraldNet.com - Work: Many military personnel struggling financially
Quote:
Members of the military use payday loans three times as often as civilians, a separate Defense Department study found. With a payday loan, you borrow against a future paycheck. On an annualized basis, I’ve seen the interest rate on such loans range from 400 percent to more than 1,000 percent.
Seems the military had to implement a financial services plan in order to help the credit ratings of many enlisted personnel out of fear of many losing their security clearance, since financial stability is apparently a component of many security clearances.

I'm sure Holly Petraeus is just full of it though.

Quote:
“Being in the military may be a secure job, but for many the paycheck is small,†Holly Petraeus wrote me in an e-mail. “It’s not hard to end up with ‘more month than money,’ especially if you are young and have little experience of managing finances. And the military does have special challenges with frequent moves that always end up costing money.â€

However, back to the topic at hand, the solution seems obvious, the "war on poverty" or war against poor folks is going about as well as the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror". So, the easiest way is to simply lower the level that constitutes the current poverty level. I would encourage impoverished folks to buy a large used car with a really big back seat, or join the military since you can spend your summers in Falujah or Marjah, and rake in all those big bucks.

Heck, I'm surprised someone hasn't suggested that people just use euthanasia on poor folks to make room for all those who carry their weight.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 09:21 AM
 
Location: In the desert
4,049 posts, read 2,728,884 times
Reputation: 2483
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper View Post
However, back to the topic at hand, the solution seems obvious, the "war on poverty" or war against poor folks is going about as well as the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror". So, the easiest way is to simply lower the level that constitutes the current poverty level. I would encourage impoverished folks to buy a large used car with a really big back seat, or join the military since you can spend your summers in Falujah or Marjah, and rake in all those big bucks.

Heck, I'm surprised someone hasn't suggested that people just use euthanasia on poor folks to make room for all those who carry their weight.
I have always said that after the blacks, & browns in this country,it will be the poor.
I would not be surprised if someone does suggest euthanasia.

I think the corporate welfare bloodsuckers that collect our tax dollars in bailouts while smiling all the way to the bank, are much worse for this country & I wish we could direct the disdain towards the poor more toward the bigger drain of corporate welfare instead.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 10:25 AM
 
Location: Long Island
56,901 posts, read 25,829,226 times
Reputation: 15444
Quote:
Originally Posted by actonbell View Post
We have this little thing in this country called votes. We can vote for the people to represent us that share the same ideals as we do. So, if you do not like welfare, tax breaks and food stamps, do not vote for those who do like them.

Yes, I am in favor of removing government interference in what are personal matters. My post was in response to ZPG. And this has what to do with the solving for the reduction in poverty how?

If our communities believe that all poor people are stupid people and are undeserving of help, where is help going to come from for those who are in need of assistance. How well do we like to watch all of those around us suffer? How much do we not care?

When was the last time any one went out into their own community and took a really good look around? When was the last time any one cared enough to inquire of their neighbor and really cared to help them, if they had a problem?

The people who have my vote are the ones that have compassion for their fellow man. If that means government subsidies stay in, then so be it. Sometimes government has to step in and bring sanity to the insane. When the people of America stopped caring for the people in their neighborhoods and their own families, that is what we get in return, bigger government, coming from the nation of those who still do care.

Don't like it, have a heart, start caring. No heart? I'm sorry.
This isn’t about compassion but rather about common sense. The government sponsored programs remove personal accountability for poor individual decisions. Many of the poor are having children at a very young age mostly because of lack of education but the government safety net plays a part also. There is finally some education in the schools but only a few are offering birth control.

There are 16 year old girls living in poverty having children that are destroying any chance they may have to progress out of their predicament. What kind of future will those children have? When one of these is expecting you don’t think these programs are a consideration?

I am all for compassion for people that are dealt a bad hand in life through no fault of their own but it's difficult to feel sorry for people that consciously make terrible decisions and expect our government to take care of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
1,736 posts, read 947,525 times
Reputation: 2811
Stop having children out of wedlock!!

This is the number one contributor to poverty in this country. Being single and 20 and having one, two, or three children, usually from different men, is a 100% gaurantee you will remain poor and virtually unemployable. You change this one thing and the poverty rate would plummet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 12:04 PM
 
Location: In the desert
4,049 posts, read 2,728,884 times
Reputation: 2483
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeutralZone View Post
Stop having children out of wedlock!!

This is the number one contributor to poverty in this country. Being single and 20 and having one, two, or three children, usually from different men, is a 100% gaurantee you will remain poor and virtually unemployable. You change this one thing and the poverty rate would plummet.

Wrong! The number one contributor of poverty in this country is our crooked politicians & the way they keep running this country to the ground with their self serving thieving ways.
They need the "poor" so they can get a certain percentage of the people to focus on other things while they take this country on a path of destruction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 12:36 PM
 
Location: CLT native
4,280 posts, read 11,266,013 times
Reputation: 2301
There is really no incentive to fix 'poverty' in this country.

Collectively, the dependent are a guaranteed block casting their votes en masse to support the boob that feeds them, which perpetuates the situation.
It is only slightly-veiled entrapment.

Think back to Katrina, we saw able-bodied healthy people who were not even willing to walk out of harms way.
It would not be an ideal situation, but given a fair warning, I would walk a few days if my life depended on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-15-2010, 12:38 PM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,169,407 times
Reputation: 27718
The system is rigged so the poor stay poor. There is no transition. It's either welfare/food stamps or practically nothing. The more kids you have the more funds you get.

The more poor that depend on the system, the more voters you have to get in power. Just promise them "more". Since they don't worry about taxes as much why would they NOT vote for them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top