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.
Yes, we know you hate the backbone of the middle class in Europe, the trade union movement.
On the contrary. What I'm saying is tax the US middle class the same as the European middle class is taxed: Put them in the highest marginal income tax rate bracket and charge them a 20%-25% National VAT tax on top of that.
If they can afford soda, then they can afford to "play it forward" to the actual poor people in the 3rd world. But somehow they need more money from the rich, while they drink soda to the point of obesity while others die of starvation. If they gave up soda, they could save millions of lives, but they don't. Such a classic example of "do as I say, not as I do".
Hi, sorry it's taken me a while to get back to this, but I did read through the articles you sent. I have a few comments.
1) The food stamp article: Your article in support of poor people's dietary habits, as compared to the average population, isn't very strong evidence. According to the article you linked, people on food stamps spend slightly more on junk food and less on vegetables, but that both food stamp and non-food stamp households buy plenty of junk food. In fact, it stated that SNAP households spent 9.3% of their budget on soft drinks vs. 7.1% in non-SNAP households.
This hardly smacks of runaway spending by poor people, let alone a reason to look upon them with contempt vs. other groups of people. And your contention that "if they can afford soda, then they can afford to pay it forward' to the actual poor people in the 3rd world" just doesn't make any sense. Soda is so cheap. A poor person's ability to purchase soda in their groceries is not indicative that they're in a position to be making donations to poor people in third world countries. I'm honestly surprised that you're persisting with this point. Is it seriously your contention that poor people should deny the pleasure of consuming any unhealthy food until they improve their station in life? That they should be judged as immoral for failing to donate any unhealthy food they do purchase?
2) The lottery ticket article: This is not evidence that poor people as a group are degenerate gamblers. The poorest third buy half of all lottery tickets true, but as the article states, states advertise most heavily for the lotto in the poorest counties. As a whole, the average spending is probably a few hundred per year for these people. Is that how they should spend their money? No. But do I judge them for being poor and desperate that they feel lotto tickets might save them from their plight? Moreover, judge them to the degree that we should be enacting policy designed to take away more from them? No, if anything it makes me feel that there shouldn't be a lottery in the first place. These aren't people going to the blackjack tables everyday.
3) The smoking article: Again, I have to say, you are offering all of these articles in the context of explaining your disdain for the poor. And on balance, this, along with your other two articles, is unpersuasive to me, and certainly doesn't explain the strength of your feeling. Smoking is an addiction. As the article you posted states, poor people don't have the same resources for quitting as people that are more well off, so it is hard to do. I don't judge people for their addictions. I think, "what can our country do policy-wise to combat the illness that is drug addiction / tobacco addiction / what have you" to get these people help?
Lastly, I don't see what your ultimate point is so far, other than bashing poor people. What's your policy solution to all this? What is it that you're supporting in this thread - cutting social programs? Decreasing taxes? And why would those be better than what we have now?
It seems to me that conservatives believe in using the carrot and stick approach when it comes to economic policy, and their approach to dealing with the poor, is to use the stick. And use the stick hard.
Last edited by Valhallian; 11-15-2017 at 02:24 PM..
No one should make any profit? Is this another straw man of yours?
Please point to my other strawman. Sounds like you're trying to spin your issue on me.
You guys want to reap the benefits of other peoples ideas and manufacturing but you don't want them to make too much profit, by taxation.
Basically I invent and make widget X. It becomes insanely popular and makes me a lot of money you have an issue with that. and you complain that you can't live without widget X. But it's unfair that I make a lot profit from Widget X. Lol.
Hi, sorry it's taken me a while to get back to this, but I did read through the articles you sent. I have a few comments.
1) The food stamp article: Your article in support of poor people's dietary habits, as compared to the average population, isn't very strong evidence. According to the article you linked, people on food stamps spend slightly more on junk food and less on vegetables, but that both food stamp and non-food stamp households buy plenty of junk food. In fact, it stated that SNAP households spent 9.3% of their budget on soft drinks vs. 7.1% in non-SNAP households.
This hardly smacks of runaway spending by poor people, let alone a reason to look upon them with contempt vs. other groups of people. And your contention that "if they can afford soda, then they can afford to pay it forward' to the actual poor people in the 3rd world" just doesn't make any sense. Soda is so cheap. A poor person's ability to purchase soda in their groceries is not indicative that they're in a position to be making donations to poor people in third world countries. I'm honestly surprised that you're persisting with this point. Is it seriously your contention that poor people should deny the pleasure of consuming any unhealthy food until they improve their station in life? That they should be judged as immoral for failing to donate any unhealthy food they do purchase?
2) The lottery ticket article: This is not evidence that poor people as a group are degenerate gamblers. The poorest third buy half of all lottery tickets true, but as the article states, states advertise most heavily for the lotto in the poorest counties. As a whole, the average spending is probably a few hundred per year for these people. Is that how they should spend their money? No. But do I judge them for being poor and desperate that they feel lotto tickets might save them from their plight? Moreover, judge them to the degree that we should be enacting policy designed to take away more from them? No, if anything it makes me feel that there shouldn't be a lottery in the first place. These aren't people going to the blackjack tables everyday.
3) The smoking article: Again, I have to say, you are offering all of these articles in the context of explaining your disdain for the poor. And on balance, this, along with your other two articles, is unpersuasive to me, and certainly doesn't explain the strength of your feeling. Smoking is an addiction. As the article you posted states, poor people don't have the same resources for quitting as people that are more well off, so it is hard to do. I don't judge people for their addictions. I think, "what can our country do policy-wise to combat the illness that is drug addiction / tobacco addiction / what have you" to get these people help?
Lastly, I don't see what your ultimate point is so far, other than bashing poor people. What's your policy solution to all this? What is it that you're supporting in this thread - cutting social programs? Decreasing taxes? And why would those be better than what we have now?
It seems to me that conservatives believe in using the carrot and stick approach when it comes to economic policy, and their approach to dealing with the poor, is to use the stick. And use the stick hard.
You conveniently missed the point. They are poor and asking for a hand out, which they then spend on things they don't need and only do them harm.
They should spend the money on (healthy) food, shelter and education.
I'm not judging the poor, but if they are going to take my money, then I sure as **** am going to have a say in what they spend it on.
You're not poor if you can afford Soda, cigs, drugs and lotto tickets. If you can afford those things, you don't need a handout.
If people can buy those things with their own money, while at the same time paying their fair share of tax, then I could care less. It's their business.
You conveniently missed the point. They are poor and asking for a hand out, which they then spend on things they don't need and only do them harm.
They should spend the money on (healthy) food, shelter and education.
I'm not judging the poor, but if they are going to take my money, then I sure as **** am going to have a say in what they spend it on.
You're not poor if you can afford Soda, cigs, drugs and lotto tickets. If you can afford those things, you don't need a handout.
If people can buy those things with their own money, while at the same time paying their fair share of tax, then I could care less. It's their business.
The bold is exactly right. Reminds me of a video I saw where someone was talking about how we shouldn't be able to dictate what welfare recipients eat just because they're poor...then they said "how about you stop telling other people how to spend their money".
...I couldn't believe they were serious. It's like bizarro world with some people.
You conveniently missed the point. They are poor and asking for a hand out, which they then spend on things they don't need and only do them harm.
They should spend the money on (healthy) food, shelter and education.
I'm not judging the poor, but if they are going to take my money, then I sure as **** am going to have a say in what they spend it on.
You're not poor if you can afford Soda, cigs, drugs and lotto tickets. If you can afford those things, you don't need a handout.
If people can buy those things with their own money, while at the same time paying their fair share of tax, then I could care less. It's their business.
Well I'm open to the idea of what the article concluded - that perhaps revisions can be made to the SNAP program so that poor people are restricted from buying certain types of foods with food stamps. So sure, if in that sense people like you and me, the taxpayers, can have a say in what poor people spend their money on then I suppose I'm open to it.
I don't really see what I missed here. I think you've painted the poor with a very broad brush, and you haven't convinced me otherwise. But even so, that's neither here nor there.
You're not addressing MY point -- what's your proposed solution? What "handouts" should we take away? That's what I want to know, and what I'm not really seeing on this forum. What policy is that you're supporting or advocating against.
We can speak in general terms all we want about how poor people behave, but if you don't explain what policies designed to help the poor that you're against this whole discussion is meaningless.
Last edited by Valhallian; 11-15-2017 at 03:34 PM..
Please point to my other strawman. Sounds like you're trying to spin your issue on me.
You guys want to reap the benefits of other peoples ideas and manufacturing but you don't want them to make too much profit, by taxation.
Basically I invent and make widget X. It becomes insanely popular and makes me a lot of money you have an issue with that. and you complain that you can't live without widget X. But it's unfair that I make a lot profit from Widget X. Lol.
In reality, the company you work for owns all rights to whatever you invent and keeps all of the profits. And then you defend the company anyway, all the while complaining about all of the poor people who are screwing you over.
In reality, the company you work for owns all rights to whatever you invent and keeps all of the profits. And then you defend the company anyway, all the while complaining about all of the poor people who are screwing you over.
Not if such invention is created on your own time and with your own money and has nothing to do with your company’s business. Otherwise the company is paying you to invent. Of course the invention would belong to the company.
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.
