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.
It sounds like some people have never been poor. Yes you may have more material things then poor in other countries but that does not mean you do not have worries like making enough to eat or pay rent. Lets be real though this thread is just another way to make an excuse not to help poor people. The poor are not living in slums so they must be okay and we should not help.
The reason they are not in slums is because of being on some sort of welfare program that pays their rent.
The slums of another country have nothing to do with the poverty in the United States or anywhere else.
What is the point of comparing the two?
Actually there is very little poverty in this country and no one starves to death. If you do then you are a either a blithering idiot or mentally disabled and have no clue how to get food.
Actually there is very little poverty in this country and no one starves to death. If you do then you are a either a blithering idiot or mentally disabled and have no clue how to get food.
"Poverty" means going without food. Or shelter. Or other things vital to life.
You stated that employers will hire less and that demand for labor will fall. The first statement is unsupported, as is the second.
YOUR OWN POSTING states they will hire less. If they arent being replaced then there isnt a demand to replace them
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
You also stated that the government will pay for the declining subsidies by taxing "those who show up for work," which is inaccurate. There is an additional 0.9% increase in the Medicare tax for individuals earning over $200,000 and joint filers over $250,000. And there is an additional capital gains burden on high income individuals. Guess what--we all pay taxes, and our tax money funds the spending of our governments (along with debt). If you are affected by the increased capital gains and/or Medicare tax, then good for you. I'm sure you'll be okay. If you are not, then continue to show up for work without facing new taxes.
And there are LOTS of other taxes.. But I'm sorry, I just cant stop laughing at you.. We arent going to tax people who show up for work, we are only going to tax people, according to you, who show up for work..
Do you think before you say this stupid ****?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
Your description of declining subsidies as "welfare handouts" is the distorted talking point. Just because a benefit is provided does not mean that it is a welfare benefit. Keep in mind that the government's subsidy is spending that contributes to the economy. You may dislike it, but don't pretend that you know how the decreased hours, the subsidy spending, and the increased demand for goods and services will impact the broader economy--unless you can produce your Macroeconomics PhD and peer-reviewed papers on the subject..
Oh my god, how dumb can one be? Government can not spend into the economy without FIRST taking it from the economy..
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
You have no idea whether Obamacare will have any impact on demand for labor. CBO's analysis suggests that it will reduce unemployment. Have you got better data?
It will reduce unemployment BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL WORK LESS.. If there was a demand to replace them, they would be replaced. Why the hell do you think an employer will forgo income an employee creates for them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCityTheBridge
It is simply not true that demand must be fulfilled. It is only fulfilled when there is supply to meet it.
: smack:
There is more then adaquate supply of americans collecting unemployment and not working.
1) Adequate shelter space to accommodate the homeless
2) Adequate food banks/food stamps to feed the hungry and alleviate food security
3) Mental health care for the homeless
4) Labor representation on the board of directors of all publicly-traded companies
5) Nationalized health care
6) One year mandatory paid parental leave for all workers
7) Child care subsidies
And here we have it ladies and gentlement. A prime example of left wing kooks thought process.
How do we cure poverty, we take crap from others and give it to those who are poor, thus bringing down the income of all americans..
TheCity.. How about we give these people JOBS.. How about we create policies which encourage JOBS near these neighborhoods.. No.. You want to just take crap from people and make them poor, in the misbelief that others are owed it..
Yes, more affordable for them personally. Current projections are that ACA will not increase the deficit. In an earlier post I discussed some of the funding sources. All of us are not subsidizing it with more taxes, but some of us are. For now, at least, the budget deficit is falling. We will not all be poor.
And the projections are the budget deficits will start rising again..
And here we have it ladies and gentlement. A prime example of left wing kooks thought process.
How do we cure poverty, we take crap from others and give it to those who are poor, thus bringing down the income of all americans..
TheCity.. How about we give these people JOBS.. How about we create policies which encourage JOBS near these neighborhoods.. No.. You want to just take crap from people and make them poor, in the misbelief that others are owed it..
Nothing on that list provided any "opportunity" for people to better themselves.
All those points are increased welfare benefits for the victims of society.
All handouts while leaving them where they are in perpetuity.
And here we have it ladies and gentlement. A prime example of left wing kooks thought process.
How do we cure poverty, we take crap from others and give it to those who are poor, thus bringing down the income of all americans..
TheCity.. How about we give these people JOBS.. How about we create policies which encourage JOBS near these neighborhoods.. No.. You want to just take crap from people and make them poor, in the misbelief that others are owed it..
On jobs--we can't do two things at once?
Here's an idea--why don't we eliminate all federal, state, and local government so that we don't "just take crap from people and make them poor"? That's wise policy, right? Think about how great our economy would be without those pesky courts, environmental regulations, military forces, and public roads.
People who pay high taxes are, by definition in a system of progressive taxation, not poor. Think before you type--you do not make people poor by increasing marginal tax rates. Are you happy with people missing meals because they can't afford food? And living on the streets?
Do you believe that the US is the only rich nation that is incapable of paying for a national health care system? Do you believe that our health care system is efficient, even though we pay more per capita than every country, and that our government spends more per capita than every developed country (except Norway and the Netherlands)? Do you believe that we get better health care, even though we are 35th in infant mortality and 35th in life expectancy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
And the projections are the budget deficits will start rising again..
Link? CBO estimates falling deficits to 2018 before they start to rise. That's pretty useful vagueness you've got there. That is unconnected to ACA, of course, so it's pretty nonsensical for you to bring it up in the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Nothing on that list provided any "opportunity" for people to better themselves.
All those points are increased welfare benefits for the victims of society.
All handouts while leaving them where they are in perpetuity.
That was not exactly an exhaustive list of all beneficial policies. I'm not sure why opportunity is in quotes. And you are ignoring items 4), 6), and 7) which do provide an "opportunity" for people to "better themselves." Assuming, I suppose, that you think parents should spend time with their infants, and that parents should have professional child care while they work. I guess a good alternative would be to lower the minimum working age to 4 and let those children learn to support themselves.
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.
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.
