I am So Sick of Hearing That Raising Taxes is Bad For the Economy.

[kokonut]

All that private charity and yet if you look at a map of America's poor, the greatest concentrations are in the red states. Why export billions of dollars to the poor in other countries but turn your nose up at helping your fellow countryman? I dont understand that kind of reasoning at all.

Private charity is no guarantee the poor will have food in their stomach. If it was, there'd be no need for food stamps.

Secondly, let's say Republicans succeed is eliminating food stamps, what do you think is going to happen? Riots.

Republicans can talk about elminating food stamps all they want but guaranteed they never will actually do that. Are you kidding? There's be nationwide riots if that ever happened. Roosevelt was absolutely correct when he said if Republicans ever tried to eliminate social/entitlement programs, their party would no longer exist.

Food stamps are here to stay. Just that more jobs need to be created and thus create less dependence on food stamps.

 

[Reba]

All that private charity and yet if you look at a map of America's poor, the greatest concentrations are in the red states. Why export billions of dollars to the poor in other countries but turn your nose up at helping your fellow countryman? I dont understand that kind of reasoning at all.

If you're saying that the US should send less aid to foreign countries, and use that money at home, that's fine with me.

People who give to charities give to international and local organizations.

Private charity is no guarantee the poor will have food in their stomach. If it was, there'd be no need for food stamps.

That's why we need a healthier economy so people won't need food stamps.

Secondly, let's say Republicans succeed is eliminating food stamps, what do you think is going to happen? Riots.

Why do you say that Republicans are trying to eliminate food stamps?

Republicans can talk about elminating food stamps all they want but guaranteed they never will actually do that. Are you kidding? There's be nationwide riots if that ever happened. Roosevelt was absolutely correct when he said if Republicans ever tried to eliminate social/entitlement programs, their party would no longer exist.

As far as I know, Republicans would like to see people not need food stamps, and that fraud be eliminated from these programs. I haven't heard about them wanting to eliminate the programs.

 

[Foxrac]

If you're saying that the US should send less aid to foreign countries, and use that money at home, that's fine with me.

People who give to charities give to international and local organizations.


That's why we need a healthier economy so people won't need food stamps.


Why do you say that Republicans are trying to eliminate food stamps?


As far as I know, Republicans would like to see people not need food stamps, and that fraud be eliminated from these programs. I haven't heard about them wanting to eliminate the programs.

It means we need solve the poverty issue and there are over millions of Americans who are in poverty.

 

[Grayma]

All that private charity and yet if you look at a map of America's poor, the greatest concentrations are in the red states. Why export billions of dollars to the poor in other countries but turn your nose up at helping your fellow countryman? I dont understand that kind of reasoning at all

I've seen no evidence to support your contention that the bulk of private charity goes overseas. "That kind of reasoning" at this point appears to be nothing but your own straw man.

Private charity is no guarantee the poor will have food in their stomach. If it was, there'd be no need for food stamps.

First of all, this appears to me to be just another red herring. My point is that it's simply a false stereotype to say that conservatives do not care about the poor, and the evidence proves that. You haven't ever presented anything that would refute or undermine Brooks' research.

Secondly, this is circular reasoning.
I find it interesting administration says that the public is 'underserved' by food stamps, that there are thousands of Americans who are eligible but will not apply. But those people are eating. Both of my married kids are eligible, but they do not apply because they are able to feed their families without it, and they eat healthy, nutritious meals. We have been eligible for food stamps before but did not take them because we could eat without them.

That reform won't happen because the corporations who sell the junk food and the convenience stores that benefit from SNAP customers will fight it. In fact, recently, fast food places have been lobbying to be permitted to accept Food Stamp dollars in exchange for the burgers and fries.

Secondly, let's say Republicans succeed is eliminating food stamps, what do you think is going to happen? Riots.

Republicans can talk about elminating food stamps all they want but guaranteed they never will actually do that. Are you kidding? There's be nationwide riots if that ever happened. Roosevelt was absolutely correct when he said if Republicans ever tried to eliminate social/entitlement programs, their party would no longer exist.

What? I don't care if the Republican party disappears, I'm not one, and I don't think they've done Constitutionalists or Libertarians or the American public any huge favors. I don't care if the Democrat party disappears because I think they are exactly the same- the establishment in both parties is only in it for themselves. Voters are merely pawns. But this has to do with what we're talking about, how?

Who is talking about eliminating food stamps? I'm talking about the silly stereotype that Republicans or conservatives don't care about the poor. It's false, I've proved it's false, and so I guess you'd rather change the subject?

most Republican talking points I've seen are about reforming food stamps, not eliminating them.

I've mentioned that it would be a good thing to reform the food stamps program so that people are not spending all the taxpayer donated food stamps money on frozen pizza, ice-cream, cookies, twinkies, cokes, and chips on the first of the month. I mentioned that because it surprised me how many people who consider themselves liberal actually said the same thing in that other post which was about food stamps. They don't like their money going for cokes. Anybody who feels that way should be in favor of reforming the system.

And fwiw, I agree, the public has become so dependent on the government supplied bread and circuses that riots would result if they are removed. You seem to think that's proof that the government supplied bread is a positive good.
I view it as proof that it created a harmful dependency and crippling sense of entitlement, and I don't think it's compassionate to cripple people this way.

But about Brooks' research proving that liberals are far less likely to donate from their personal funds to help the poor....

 

[DeafCaroline]

But about Brooks' research proving that liberals are far less likely to donate from their personal funds to help the poor....

Red herring. Straw man.

 

[Grayma]

It means we need solve the poverty issue and there are over millions of Americans who are in poverty.

Interesting fact- One important reason for this is that the government has redefined poverty over the years in order to make sure we always have a certain number falling below the line. Many of those living below the poverty line in the U.S. have a living standard that qualified as middle class in the 70s.

Both my married kids live below the poverty line. They pay their bills, eat well, and manage to put aside a little savings. They even go see a movie once in a while.

We lived below the poverty level most of our time in the military. Sometimes that was because half of enlisted pay isn't counted when the government does its poverty figures.

Also interesting- with the exception of the generational welfare families who have been deeply damaged by government programs, the poverty levels aren't static. People move up and out of poverty over time, and other people move into it- especially young people just out on their own.


There cannot be real reform and help for those stuck in poverty until there is a recognition that some of them are there because the government has taught them it's a waste of time to try to save money and spend wisely. You can't fix a problem if you don't know what it is.


Real life example- a woman I know very well who has been living on the government entirely for the five years I've known her came to me asking for a loan for a hundred dollars to fix a tire on her car. She had no money, she said. In the same conversation she told me about the 20 dollars she'd just spend on her preschooler's school pictures, the 20 dollars she wanted to spend on a field trip (one she could duplicate locally for about five dollars), She came to my house with her store bought coffee drink in hand, was going out to eat, she showed me her new shoes, and the new clothes she'd just bought. She also has redecorated her apartment using rent to own plans when there was nothing wrong with the furniture she had. She lives in poverty, according to the government. She has a computer, the internet, two cell phones, cable television, a car, and she buys so much food they throw a lot of it away (she won't keep packages past the sell by date).

I've watched her buy herself stuff like expensive nail polish, bath soaps, and perfumes at Walgreen's while picking up her son's prescription meds and then pitching a fit at being asked to pay the three dollar copay for her kid's medication. "Where am I going to get the money for that? Why should I have to pay that? I guess it will just have to come out of his Pampers money." I kid you not. She is poor. She has no job but a small one babysitting before and after school. But she will never be anything but poor because of the way she's learned to view money and government services.

All people living under the poverty line are not like this, but I guarantee that quite a few are. Taking care of poverty in American would have to include recognizing that situations like this do exist.

 

[Grayma]

Red herring. Straw man.

 

[kokonut]

Interesting fact- One important reason for this is that the government has redefined poverty over the years in order to make sure we always have a certain number falling below the line. Many of those living below the poverty line in the U.S. have a living standard that qualified as middle class in the 70s.

Both my married kids live below the poverty line. They pay their bills, eat well, and manage to put aside a little savings. They even go see a movie once in a while.

We lived below the poverty level most of our time in the military. Sometimes that was because half of enlisted pay isn't counted when the government does its poverty figures.

Also interesting- with the exception of the generational welfare families who have been deeply damaged by government programs, the poverty levels aren't static. People move up and out of poverty over time, and other people move into it- especially young people just out on their own.


There cannot be real reform and help for those stuck in poverty until there is a recognition that some of them are there because the government has taught them it's a waste of time to try to save money and spend wisely. You can't fix a problem if you don't know what it is.


Real life example- a woman I know very well who has been living on the government entirely for the five years I've known her came to me asking for a loan for a hundred dollars to fix a tire on her car. She had no money, she said. In the same conversation she told me about the 20 dollars she'd just spend on her preschooler's school pictures, the 20 dollars she wanted to spend on a field trip (one she could duplicate locally for about five dollars), She came to my house with her store bought coffee drink in hand, was going out to eat, she showed me her new shoes, and the new clothes she'd just bought. She also has redecorated her apartment using rent to own plans when there was nothing wrong with the furniture she had. She lives in poverty, according to the government. She has a computer, the internet, two cell phones, cable television, a car, and she buys so much food they throw a lot of it away (she won't keep packages past the sell by date).

I've watched her buy herself stuff like expensive nail polish, bath soaps, and perfumes at Walgreen's while picking up her son's prescription meds and then pitching a fit at being asked to pay the three dollar copay for her kid's medication. "Where am I going to get the money for that? Why should I have to pay that? I guess it will just have to come out of his Pampers money." I kid you not. She is poor. She has no job but a small one babysitting before and after school. But she will never be anything but poor because of the way she's learned to view money and government services.

All people living under the poverty line are not like this, but I guarantee that quite a few are. Taking care of poverty in American would have to include recognizing that situations like this do exist.

For being poor they sure do own a lot of stuff. Fridge, computers, air conditioner, etc....

 

[DeafCaroline]

For being poor they sure do own a lot of stuff. Fridge, computers, air conditioner, etc....

Oh my god, a fridge? how dare they call themselves poor! off with their heads!

 

[kokonut]

Oh my god, a fridge? how dare they call themselves poor! off with their heads!

Yeah, a majority of the poor population own/use various amenities such as fridge, tv, stove/oven, microwave, air conditioning, VCR, DVD, Cable/Satellite, clothes washer, cell phone....

 

[DeafCaroline]

Yeah, a majority of the poor population own/use various amenities such as fridge, tv, stove/oven, microwave, air conditioning, VCR, DVD, Cable/Satellite, clothes washer, cell phone....

So?

 

[kokonut]

Better off than the people living in India.

 

[Banjo]

Well, frankly, cable and satellite are both considered luxuries. Just saying.

 

[kokonut]

And poor people have them....not all...but they do have access to satellite/cable.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Better off than the people living in India.

And your point is what? That they are not really poor if they can afford "luxuries" like fridges and microwaves? Or cable tv? Do they have to be as bad off as the poor in India before they qualify as poor in your eyes in America?

So, um, fridges and microwaves are luxuries because that means they can actually chill and heat up their food?

People who work in fields all day might be too tired to spend another 2 hours preparing a meal over a firepit when they get home or maybe after washing dishes all day for shit pay in a restaurant, they don't really want to wash dishes when they get home or maybe, to feed their kids milk that didn't go bad, they kinda need a fridge.

Or after bending over toilets cleaning up other people's feces and urine, they badly need to zone out when they get home and watch a damn tv show if they want to.

A cellphone? One can get that cheap, same for computers.

Airconditioning...I've been in the South, it gets really hot and really muggy and I am sure hard working folks deserve their damn air conditioning when they've been working all day outside and many do die from heat stroke when they do not have air conditioning. How dare they think they are entitled to air conditioning. How dare they? Only people who have more money should be allowed to have air conditioning. the poor should just sit and suffer in 100 plus heat at nght, unable to sleep and thus having less energy the next day to pick the fucking fruits in the fields again, their backs bent over all day and aching.

They do deserve it, the amenities like fridges, stoves, microwaves, air conditioning, many of them have jobs most of us turn our noses up at and quite frankly, to suggest they're not really poor because they have fucking amenities is a stupid ignorant and selfish thing to say.

 

[Banjo]

And your point is what? That they are not really poor if they can afford "luxuries" like fridges and microwaves? Or cable tv? Do they have to be as bad off as the poor in India before they qualify as poor in your eyes in America?

So, um, fridges and microwaves are luxuries because that means they can actually chill and heat up their food?

People who work in fields all day might be too tired to spend another 2 hours preparing a meal over a firepit when they get home or maybe after washing dishes all day for shit pay in a restaurant, they don't really want to wash dishes when they get home or maybe, to feed their kids milk that didn't go bad, they kinda need a fridge.

Or after bending over toilets cleaning up other people's feces and urine, they badly need to zone out when they get home and watch a damn tv show if they want to.

A cellphone? One can get that cheap, same for computers.

Airconditioning...I've been in the South, it gets really hot and really muggy and I am sure hard working folks deserve their damn air conditioning when they've been working all day outside and many do die from heat stroke when they do not have air conditioning. How dare they think they are entitled to air conditioning. How dare they? Only people who have more money should be allowed to have air conditioning. the poor should just sit and suffer in 100 plus heat at nght, unable to sleep and thus having less energy the next day to pick the fucking fruits in the fields again, their backs bent over all day and aching.

They do deserve it, the amenities like fridges, stoves, microwaves, air conditioning, many of them have jobs most of us turn our noses up at and quite frankly, to suggest they're not really poor because they have fucking amenities is a stupid ignorant and selfish thing to say.

kokonut, you are a scumbag. 100%.

Microwaves are much cheaper to buy and use compared to a standard stove oven. So I can see why the poor would defer to that instead. People actually do die from being too hot. So I can see why people would need an AC. I wouldn't go so quick to call it a luxury considering how dangerous it is to be in a heatwave. Especially if you are an infant or a senior.

 

[SteveMcGarrett]

Gee Whiz,,,Talking about Poor countries,,, Just go into Somalia then youll see a poor country yourself. They have no homes,,No cars and they wash their clothes and themselves in the river,,And they eat Cornbread,rice and Beans.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Gee Whiz,,,Talking about Poor countries,,, Just go into Somalia then youll see a poor country yourself. They have no homes,,No cars and they wash their clothes and themselves in the river,,And they eat Cornbread,rice and Beans.

Steve, do yourself a favour and shut up.

 

[DeafCaroline]

Microwaves are much cheaper to buy and use compared to a standard stove oven. So I can see why the poor would defer to that instead. People actually do die from being too hot. So I can see why people would need an AC. I wouldn't go so quick to call it a luxury considering how dangerous it is to be in a heatwave. Especially if you are an infant or a senior.

Having a cable tv or a computer does not mean you're rolling around in extravagance at all. Far from it.

One would think kokonut is saying you're only poor if you're skeletal and so weak you cannot lift your arm to brush the flies away from your eyes.

 

[Banjo]

Having a cable tv or a computer does not mean you're rolling around in extravagance at all. Far from it.

One would think kokonut is saying you're only poor if you're skeletal and so weak you cannot lift your arm to brush the flies away from your eyes.

True, although I don't subscribe to cable. That's why I said it's a luxury because you don't need it to survive. Never saw the need to with what you can get on the internet these days. I watch HD programming on TV via an antenna.

Some people just don't know what it is like to be poor even if they thought they were once poor.