"Poverty in America"... mostly rhetoric

So those owning a home but receiving welfare are "POOR."

Those not owning a home and living in govt housing are "POORER."

And those homeless are "POOREST."

There is no end to liberal looniness.

 

Everyone understands that poverty can be relative, especially in modern economies. Therefore, resorting to special pleading regarding relative forms of poverty can be considered a fallacy. Logic and reason should be used for goodness and not badness. Resorting to fallacy can be considered a badness to philosophy.

 

Relative to what?

 

Relative to cost of living...

And to answer your previous response to me, I admit that poverty metrics aren't identical between countries, but more often than not, America's definition of poverty is more strict than a lot of our peers.

Canada has a much broader definition of poverty, for example.

 

Bluesguy,

I thought you were familiar with your own argument. I am not that motivated to simply refute propaganda and rhetoric.

Maybe you could practice playing the blues more often instead.

 

There are degrees of poverty just as there are degrees of wealth.

 

How so the poor seem to do very well meeting the cost of living. Much better than you average family of the 60's who were not considered poor.

Here read all the relativity you care too

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Re...or-Examining-the-Plague-of-Poverty-in-America
"Conclusion

The living conditions of persons defined as poor by the government bear little resemblance to notions of "poverty" promoted by politicians and political activists. If poverty is defined as lacking adequate nutritious food for one's family, a reasonably warm and dry apartment to live in, or a car with which to get to work when one is needed, then there are relatively few poor persons remaining in the United States. Real material hardship does occur, but it is limited in scope and severity.

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 equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

But the living conditions of the average poor person should not be taken to mean that all poor Americans live without hardship. There is a wide range of living conditions among the poor. Roughly a third of poor households do face material hardships such as overcrowding, intermittent food shortages, or difficulty obtaining medical care. However, even these households would be judged to have high living standards in comparison to most other people in the world.

Moreover, the United States can readily reduce its remaining poverty, especially among children. The main causes of child poverty in the United States are low levels of parental work, high numbers of single-parent families, and low skill levels of incoming immigrants. By increasing work and marriage, reducing illegal immigration, and by improving the skill level of future legal immigrants, our nation can, over time, virtually eliminate remaining child poverty."

 

Well then, I suppose we can end welfare then. I guess everybody's ok.

 

Heritage-and you believe a bunch of right-wing throwbacks with fantasies of white picket-fence, apple-pie, Chevy in the drive and 2.4 Pepsodent-smile kids, the American Way, 'personal responsibility' and Jesus, is a credible source? 'American values'? WTF?

 

No different that the conservative looniness.

Those that make 250K/YR aren't rich when suggesting raising taxes on said group.

Those making 80K/YR are super wealthy government union employee mooches when talking about teachers.

 

You stated it was relative. If you don't know what it is relative to then you statement has no meaning.

 

We can certainly reform and end a lot it just as Gingrich and Kaisch did in the 90's.

 

Nothing of substance to add I see,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,oh well.

 

The difference is that the loonies want to solve our spending problem by taxing the people that produce jobs. Not only is that bad for producing jobs but as you already well know, raising the tax rate on those making $200,000 or more [THAT is the number, not $250,000.00] will only raise $70 billion per year. So we kill job creation to take $70 billion off a $1.7 TRILLION DEFICIT. And the loss of jobs could well eat up all of that $70 billion in revenue and a couple of hundred billion more.
I've said over and over, AFTER we do REAL cuts in spending, I'm all for total reform of the tax code where everyone gets to participate in financing this nation. True shared sacrifice.
When we last reformed the tax code in the 80's I lost 10's of thousands of dollars worth of tax shelters. I didn't like it but I also knew we had to do it as our tax code had gotten ridiculous. Now it is there again and needs thrown out and a new start. As soon as REAL tax cuts are made, Lets work on the revenue.
And why CUTS first?
Spending is over $3.8 TRILLION. REVENUE in our best years, has never approached $3 TRILLION. So to somehow believe revenue is magically going to increase to a level it has never, ever reached, just to equal spending is ludicrous and stupid. Even adding in every cent of the bush tax cuts for the rich AND poor would not bring revenue up to $3 trillion in our best year. The whole ridiculous Democrat chant of "TAX THE RICH" is simply a smoke screen to protect their sacred cows they use to buy votes from the terminally gullible. The Democrat leaders KNOW the tax the rich story is complete bull(*)(*)(*)(*). They are the rich too.

 

You brought up the obsolete rhetoric and propaganda point about poverty being relative in a more developed political-economy. I agree with you that poverty is relative.

Since it is relative, it really doesn't matter what the subjective moral value of poverty elimination is for either of us; especially if we can establish Standards for use in money based markets, such as those established metrics, and weights and measures, of the phenomena termed official poverty.

Thus, we already have official poverty guidelines for the Union. Why not simply bear true witness to our own laws--for the sake of morals, and eliminate the phenomena termed a natural rate of unemployment.

 

You can say that all you like, but I don't believe you. The 1950s had a top tax rate of somewhere in the neighborhood of 90%, and had a very robust economy. So there is empirical evidence that higher taxation on "job creators" does not lead to less jobs.

But keep on repeating that meme, and maybe enough folks will believe you to make the policy permanent, and see how the nations infrastructure holds up. I cant wait.

 

Why not cut our wars on abstractions during times of cutting taxes?

 

Even if you were right and there was no ill effect on jobs. We are no where near a robust economy and won't be for YEARS. The economy will still be bad when odrama is sent back to Chicago in Nov 2012. And a massive tax increase is still a "fool's errand" as our revenue has never approached the HUGE number now needed to just cover the deficit. We need revenue of $3.9 trillion or more with the insane spending of this administration. No mater what, NEVER, has our revenue been as high as $3.0 trillion WITH the tax increases.

Do you realize that the TOTAL deficits run up by Bush and a Republican Congress for 6 years is under $1,500 trillion? It is, not the debt increase, the deficits. odrama and the Democrats will exceed that 6 year total with just this year $1,700 trillion deficit. A tax increase cannot catch up to that kind of insanity.

And I don't give a tinker's dam what you believe. Liberals love to believe ludicrous nonsense. What I'm posting is simply fact and truth. If you could put your blinding ideology aside for a few minutes and research the numbers in an unbiased manner you'd see I'm telling it like it is. I would rather that I wasn't right. I would rather that the country was in great shape and that I didn't care who was minding the store. But none of us can do that now. This country is in the most serious trouble it has ever faced

 

Korea....an illegal action...the mass murder and genocide of a nation with the help of America!
Greneda...the stealing of an island that belonged to England!
Afghanistan an oil production and supply problem! CEO,'s Benefits!
Defensive action.....bollocks!
All wars for conquest...all to the benefit of multi nationals!

Afghanistan now supplies the worlds production of Heroin....with the CIA's help.

The Taliban reduced it to less than 2%.......wonder who's benefiting from the Drug trade???? Certainly isn't Americans or the Taliban!

Wonder who has the expertise and infrastructure to import such vast quantities of heroin, To America, Germany, UK, France Canada, Australia...certainly isn't the Taliban!

Nahhh...you need to look closer to home for the degenerates who live off the backs of destroyed families and poverty ridden American nationals!


Regards
Highlander

 

If Korea was an "illegal action," does that mean that China's actions there were equally illegal?

 

I know families in Scotland who's brother's were killed in Korea.

But that doesn't change the facts!

China supported the North....fact......but few know they ran at the American lines without arms....only stop to pick up the arms of there fallen comrades.

That my friend is horrific!

But China didn't have to go half way around the world to protect and give democracy with bombs!!!
Korea is the neighbour of China.......American is not!

Not see some similarities with Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Columbia, etc etc etc!

Regards
Highlander

 

Should America have taken the same tactic with WW2? We had to go across two oceans to get involved in that.

 

Why not eliminate a poverty of Statism in the Middle East and simply recognize another State in historic Palestine; would it be too fiscally responsible in modern times of lowering taxes while increasing public sector intervention in private sector markets, and not calling it a form of Socialism or Communism.

 

In my opinion, our Founding Fathers wisely enumerated only sufficient socialism to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

By what latitude of construction to republicans with a republican doctrine find any Constitutional authority for providing for the general badfare or the common offense?

It seems incredulous that even seasoned veterans in public office cannot tell the difference between the common defense and the common offense.

 

I lean more towards isolationism than interventionism, but WW2 is one of the few wars I consider to have been necessary.