I don't like paying for the welfare queens/kings in the projects (credit, buying)

[EJ3791]

Originally Posted by treemoni

I used an example.

I'm not going to say anything about the rest of what you said. Your position on this issue is clear, as is mine. Therefore, the statistics you bring to the table will be a lot different from mine. Who's is right? Well, that depends on who's reading. The undisputed fact, however, is that the wealth in the US...and the wealth of the world, is concentrated in very few hands (I shy away from the 1% because even though it may be true, it has become a trite talking point). You cannot argue that without outright lying, and if you really dig deep, the wealth is in the hands of the same FAMILIES that it has always been.

I'm not sure what positions of mine you think are clear. I try to rely on sources that wouldn't tend to share my own biases. Differences between sources tend to come from methodology, for instance, whether a study counts spending on veterans or foreign economic aid or maybe homeland security as "defense."

I think the richest 1% or the top 1% of income are used because that's a cut off used in a lot of studies. I don't dispute that the richest 1% has 35% of net worth in this country and 42% of financial assets. I just don't see why I should care about that in the context of poverty.

[treemoni]

Originally Posted by EJ3791

I don't dispute that the richest 1% has 35% of net worth in this country and 42% of financial assets. I just don't see why I should care about that in the context of poverty.

Because that money is coming from the middle and working class, who cannot afford to subsidize people whose families can sustain themselves for generations if all members stopped "working" today.

[EJ3791]

Originally Posted by treemoni

Because that money is coming from the middle and working class, who cannot afford to subsidize people whose families can sustain themselves for generations if all members stopped "working" today.

How is that money coming from other classes? It sounds like you mean through taxes, but we've already established that the highest income percentile pays a share of federal taxes about 30% higher than its share of income, and that percentage increases the higher you go- the top 0.1% pay a 55% higher share of federal taxes than their share of income (14% of taxes vs. 9% of income). By comparison, the middle 60% of households get about 44% of income and pay about 31% of federal taxes.

[baileyvpotter]

Originally Posted by treemoni

"Intergenerational provery" is just a euphemism for black people. Spare me. Nobody uses "intergenerational" when talking about the wealthy (and they perpetuate more intergenerational bullcrap than anyone). FYI, there are plenty of "new poor"--people who lost their good jobs and now have to rely on social services. And there has always been working poor.

Originally Posted by urza216

They do okay because you CONSIDER it okay living for Mexicans. 3 geneations under one roof in small living quarters isn't the best way to live. Other people who work low wage jobs do it too. When not Mexican, it's referred to as "living in your parents' basement".

^^^^Hear it & see it every day from people who are desperately trying and are doing what they
can on their own and are ashamed that they need help.

Originally Posted by coldwine

I thought a lot about this thread and how I wanted to respond. It is of course part of a larger narrative that has been bandied about by pundits, politicians and the public ("plague" being another alliterative noun that would fit nicely here) since at least Reagan coined the term.

In order to ameliorate my own outrage, I guess I must accept how completely out of touch the average American truly is. I said this before on this forum years and years ago: I cannot believe I live in a nation where we subsidize the private jets of executives but deeply begrudge people who receive public assistance.
I have worked in regulation and the legal business for many years. The conclusion I arrived at a long time ago is that it is a waste of time to attempt to prevent all corruption.

I do not want to know why someone is on welfare and I do not want them to feel as though they need to "prove" that they "deserve" it. What kind of person demands such a degrading, inhumane accountability from people while at the same time we have military industrial contracts that charge hundreds of dollars for a hammer? We have CIA agents tossing honest-to-god bags of cash to shady contacts in the middle east. We were apparently subsidizing the cost of fuel for our corporate class.

What I am saying is, you are begrudging someone pennies while not acknowledging the billions being stolen elsewhere. And for what it's worth, "welfare queen" was Reagan's code for poor black women in the 80's. The same man who used drug money at the height of the War on Drugs to float boats of guns to Iran. Do you see the consequences of ignoring dollars for pennies?

Couldn't rep all - wish I could. My question would be "What does the OP have to say now?"

[treemoni]

Originally Posted by EJ3791

How is that money coming from other classes? It sounds like you mean through taxes, but we've already established that the highest income percentile pays a share of federal taxes about 30% higher than its share of income, and that percentage increases the higher you go- the top 0.1% pay a 55% higher share of federal taxes than their share of income (14% of taxes vs. 9% of income). By comparison, the middle 60% of households get about 44% of income and pay about 31% of federal taxes.

Again, 55% of six figures hurts a lot less than 31% of five figures (especially considering people in the highest bracket hide money and have investments), but I digress. We are not going to agree on this.

[urza216]

This theead needs to be moved to to the Politics section. Usually, I dislike when the mods do this but this thread really has nothing whatsoever to do with Chicago, specifically.

[Idon'tdateyou]

Originally Posted by montanamom

This is the old "McDonalds has plenty of burger flipping jobs available" line. Really? Not in my area. These days, for every opening they have, they get a ton of applications. They are not by any means desparately seeking workers.

Also, it's hard to make someone "employable" that is going on the third or fourth generation of a family that has NEVER worked anywhere. They have no role models, no one that has shown them what being responsible for yourself even looks like. It takes at least a minimal amount of social skills to be employable, many of these people just do not possess them, and unfortunately, probably never will.

And I'm supposed to feel sorry for these freeloaders who choose not to better themselves because? Once again there is McDonalds for these folks.

[EJ3791]

Originally Posted by treemoni

Again, 55% of six figures hurts a lot less than 31% of five figures (especially considering people in the highest bracket hide money and have investments), but I digress. We are not going to agree on this.

I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying, which was about how much the rich pay in taxes as a class, compared to their income, as a class, not about the rates paid by individual households. In any event I'm not looking for agreement, I'm just trying to understand your argument. What I've gotten out of your comments so far is that:

(1) the rich should pay higher taxes than they do now because they can afford to;

(2) the rich's taxes not being high enough somehow shifts a burden to middle income people, who therefore pay more in taxes than they can afford; and

(3) for some unknown reason, this means that we shouldn't be concerned about problems with social welfare spending and poverty.

[cubssoxfan]

Originally Posted by Idon'tdateyou

And I'm supposed to feel sorry for these freeloaders who choose not to better themselves because? Once again there is McDonalds for these folks.

And once again, you are making an assumption about the people interviewed in the story. Nowhere did I read about the how, when, where, why and what regarding their need to be on housing assistance. All it discussed was the where. Since there are many stories of solidly middle class people who lost their homes and bank accounts during the Great Recession, it is foolish to assume these people are "welfare Queens". Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But since you did not base your rant on a story that proves they are; all your ranting is just hot air/empty words because you are working on an ASSumption.

[Mr. Opinionated]

Originally Posted by Idon'tdateyou

And I'm supposed to feel sorry for these freeloaders who choose not to better themselves because? Once again there is McDonalds for these folks.

Originally Posted by cubssoxfan

And once again, you are making an assumption about the people interviewed in the story. ...Since there are many stories of solidly middle class people who lost their homes and bank accounts during the Great Recession, it is foolish to assume these people are "welfare Queens". Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But since you did not base your rant on a story that proves they are; all your ranting is just hot air/empty words because you are working on an ASSumption.

And aside from what appears as jealousy, the above shows and g good example of the lazy-minded generalizing that is used to bash people who are in need. To assume that they somehow do not deserve assistance based on the fact there are bad examples among them, not unlike just about any other sector of life. Profiling is profiling. Just as because one not might not percieve themselves as receiving assistance does not make them any more morally decent.