AOC is socialist. Is that bad?

Yep, significantly improve welfare payments. Demand more progressive tax and secure more money spent on tax evasion. God bless your sense!

 

1) We live in a reality of finite resources, and time. Billions of us live in abject poverty. And you want to grant First Worlders the largess to make a few mistakes, be forgiven, and continue on their preferred journey unmolested? What kind of fantastical privilege were you born to, if you think nature allows for such grotesque indulgence and luxury? Adapt or perish, that's where the buck stops. Until we invent immortality and infinite resources, we're stuck with it. Trying to live as though that's true is something close to evil, because it costs others so very much.

2) This thread is about economics, not hugging your neighbours. But since we're on that .. the kindest and most giving people (giving their time, energy, and resources throughout their lives, never asking for anything in return) I've ever met in my 50+ years have ALL been conservative Christians. Even as a liberal atheist, I can say that with absolute honesty.

 

Are they attempting to live alone? If so, why? The poor around the world have always understood that paupers cannot live independently .. that they must pool resources and share expenses by remaining in family groups.

It all comes back to choices, in the First World. Always.

 

Spend an hour or so studying the contents of shopping carts of the poorest First Worlders. No rice, no beans, no cheap seasonal local produce. It's soda, meat, cheese, and processed (and therefore much more expensive .. per weight/nutrients etc) foods. Compare that to the diet of the genuinely poor .. which will be all rice/beans/cheap local produce.

No formal research needed. We can verify that poverty in the First World is a choice with this simple exercise. Add in rates of smartphone ownership, new clothing purchases, excessive use of electricity, alcohol and cigarette consumption, entertainment expenditure, fast food, etc, amongst America's 'poor', and the evidence is rock solid.

 

yes you do you're very bigoted for sure. You said you'd rather "be a liberal who cares" as if you care more than conservatives because you support welfare and they don't, and that makes you morally superior despite the millions liberalism has killed?

 

More pure insanity!. Conservatives give more to charity at the local level and are far more active at the local personal level in personal charity!! LIberals are the one who want impersonal and crippling federal programs. Do you understand now??

 

they cant be since there is not enough support for it. For 3rd time, does the gifted one grasp this concept?

 

dear, both houses mean nothing. You need a big majority in both house and unanimity of opinion before it translates into law. Is this really over your head?

 

you have learned many times that conservatives support a huge military and tiny govt. Military is not a program. Military created country, freed slaves, defeated HItler Stalin and Mao, and now polices the world.

 

there is not a hint of fiscal responsibility from Dems since they depend on expanding welfare programs for votes to survive, while Republicans do not. Just coincidence that Dems killed all 30 BBA's and are now denouncing Trumps $4.7 trillion budget as cruel or that Dems have proposed new programs that would cost 30 trillion?? 1+1=2

 

exactly!!!

The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from a variety of government reports:

​

46 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

​

80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

​

Only six percent of poor households are overcrowded; two thirds have more than two rooms per person.

​

The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

​

Nearly three quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.

​

97 percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

​

78 percent have a VCR or DVD player.

​

62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

​

89 percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a more than a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America’s poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100-percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, super-nourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and ten pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience temporary food shortages. But, even this condition is relatively rare; 89 percent of the poor report their families have “enough” food to eat, while only two percent say they “often” do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR, or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all of the nation’s poor: There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. A third of “poor” households have both cell and land-line telephones. A third also telephone answering machines. At the other extreme, approximately one-tenth of families in poverty have no phone at all. Similarly, while the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

Much official poverty that does exist in the United States can be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

 

Not sure what you are touched by - but it ain't rational thought. What is the deal with responding to a short post with 4 separate posts.

Your inference that a minority Dem congress is 100% responsible for the budget deficit beyond mindless gibberish.

 

socialism should always be used for the Good and not the Bad.

 

I've seen 'poor' Americans run airconditioning around the clock, run clothes dryers with every load of laundry, buy take out several times a week, eat meat with every meal, buy new clothes on a regular basis, and keep up with the latest iphone. It's shockingly grotesque to consider such people impoverished, and doing so indicates a significant dearth of moral fibre. Yet these are the very people our Progressive friends Virtue Signal about.

 

According to Google, 21.3% of Americans are on some form of welfare assistance at any given time. It states that there are 80 different federal programs they regard as a form of welfare, including simple financial aid, Medicaid, and food stamps. Conservatives are always saying how capitalism would be the best answer to eliminate welfare, but many companies in America pay their employees too little to live on, forcing them to get aid from welfare just to survive. Walmart is a good example. A majority of Walmart employees are forced to get food stamps to feed their families. Many professional military families must do the same. So, many recipients of welfare programs are ALREADY employed full time. Yet, American capitalism isn't solving the problem. Rather, it has CREATED THE PROBLEM, by paying its employees too little for survival. This is why American capitalism needs major revision if it is to be retained.
2. While I'm sure there are individuals & families abusing the welfare system, I'm also convinced they are a minority. I agree it's better to teach them "to fish" rather than simply give them the fish, but conservatives not only attack the welfare system itself, but they've successfully terminated funding for job training programs that help those on welfare to escape that treadmill. So, conservatives promote an idea & work behind the scenes to undermine the very idea they are promoting. How is that helpful?

 

Your "rice & beans" idea would help a fraction of welfare recipients to survive, but the problem of welfare is far too large for any one simple idea to resolve alone. It's going to take some major cooperative efforts politically & economically to really come up with a viable solution that makes a difference. Continuing to simply find fault & lay blame, really gets us nowhere--and never will. We need to work together as Americans, not political foes, to finally resolve this.

 

1. Many of my personal posts here on this forum have been to point out that our economic resources are finite & what we have are increasingly going to a smaller & smaller portion of our population. Many "capitalist" members of this forum continually tell me that our economic resources are NOT limited & are available to any motivated individual, whether he/she has money or not. From my perspective, if 98% of our national economic resources are owned by 2% of our population, that doesn't leave much for our motivated populace to work with. Perhaps this fact contributes to our welfare needs.
2. America might actually have a chance at becoming "great again" if Americans cared more about hugging their neighbors. That might make us all feel like we're part of something greater than ourselves again--a feeling that has been declining since the Reagan Presidency, and is utter anathema to Trumpsters. I still argue the point that national "greatness" doesn't stem from economic wealth, or a nation's ability to inflict its will over other nations thru military force. National "greatness" derives from what a nation offers humanity thru its inventions, philosophy, arts, science, advancement of knowledge, etc. No nation that has a national obsession with personal greed can ever hope to achieve anything approaching national "greatness."

 

It's an interesting perspective, and you might have a valid point. I hope you do.

 

You are entitled to put any interpretation you wish on my posts or life in general--and you do. Everyone has that same right, and exercise it every moment of their lives. For every sentence one can write, there's probably a minimum of two very different possible interpretations available for anyone listening. They will impose their own perspective on that interpretation as a matter of course. We all do.

My statement that I'd rather be "a liberal who cares," doesn't (in my mind) imply ALL conservatives don't care. I know there are conservatives with a heart, but most come across in the media & on this forum as generally not being highly motivated by helping others, but more in tune with helping themselves. That's just my personal impression. I'd love to be wrong.

 

I don't see federal & state social help programs & personal efforts to assist as competitive. I see them as two facets of the same effort. Why are you seeing them as competitors or enemies? Is that a personal bias you are imposing on them?

 

On the contrary, it would help almost all of them. Unless you think saving a considerable amount of money (on groceries) isn't helpful.

Yes, we MUST continue to be honest about why people end up or remain 'poor' in a First World democracy. Pretending it's anything other than what it is (poor choices), will perpetuate the problem, not fix it. Anything swept under a rug will come back and bite. And in the meantime, you compromise all of those future generations who will suffer as a result of your denial. Not to mention all of those who suffer while precious resources are channelled to First Worlders who make poor decisions.

 

Oh it's valid

 

The greatest kindness any of us can exercise is to be cruel where necessary. Those who can't or won't do so, are irresponsible and lazy. They make terrible parents, and bad leaders.

 

Rice and beans.

A family on welfare can leave poverty behind forever just by being scrupulously frugal, and sticking to it for as many years as it takes.

 

Speaking as one who has made more "poor choices" than I would like to admit--or even remember--I can testify that at the time many were made, I saw few if any options. I agree with your concept that we are all responsible for ourselves & where we are at any given moment in our lives, I am less rigid and more forgiving of others, even if they did cause much of that pain themselves. Being human is complicated. Being judgmental, harsh, inflexible & smug only makes matters worse.