Dem Leaders Really Care For The Poor? (1 Viewer)

[Donkey1499]

I was watching Special Report: W/ Brit Hume on Fox yesterday and saw a report about how some businesses in Los Angeles have to close their stores because the bums are literally camping out in the front of the stores; in tents, boxes, sleeping bags, you name it. But the police can't arrest these bums or re-locate them to anywhere else because 'these people are economically challenged (more PCBS) and need to be left alone'. So they camp, and most people wouldn't want to shop at a store that has bums sitting in front of it, shaking them down for a buck. I wouldn't tolerate that either, especially since I don't have much spare for myself to begin with anyways.
[Just a side thing here; if those bums can camp out in the street in a tent, then why can't they go move out into the woods and camp out there? Camping in the woods makes a lot more sense than camping in the streets]

But to get on topic (the above paragraph was background info), LA is one of America's most liberal cities (besides San Francisco, Seattle, etc.) and liberals are supposedly all about helping the poor (aka: bums). So, WHY THE HELL AIN'T THEY HELPING THESES BUMS... I mean.... ECONOMICALLY CHALLENGED INDIVIDUALS? I don't blame the lower income libs, but I do blame the lib leadership. They have more cash than anyone else, as do those Hollywoodites. Why don't THEY give their extra cash to a home to put these bums in? (How much cash does Tom Cruise have? Like 100 Mil I'm guessing). You know, this could also go towards republicans too. They want to stop being accused of not caring for the poor? They why the hell don't they prove that they care and give some of their extra cash away?

Because both the left AND the right make these false promises in the hopes of getting their vote.
Poverty can't end until people learn to cooperate and learn to make a few sacrifices in life.
I'm not trying to say that these politicians/Hollywoodites HAVE TO give their money away, but they need to either put up or shut up. And this is straight from the ***'s mouth! :mrgreen:

 

[Captain America]

Right on Donkey man!

Myself, by the time a politician becomes a "leader," I find it hard to trust any of them.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Their needs give them no claim on whats mine. Unemployment and poverty will never be eliminated, in fact most unemployment in America today is frictional.

The "hollywood elites" dont have to do anything with their money, and most do some charity. But when you say put up or shut up, how do you intend to silence them? Because the only thing Tom Cruise is putting up for is a Xenu Starcrosser 1.6

 

[Donkey1499]

Their needs give them no claim on whats mine. Unemployment and poverty will never be eliminated, in fact most unemployment in America today is frictional.

The "hollywood elites" dont have to do anything with their money, and most do some charity. But when you say put up or shut up, how do you intend to silence them? Because the only thing Tom Cruise is putting up for is a Xenu Starcrosser 1.6

"Put up or shut up" was just a figure of speech that used at the time because of my frustration. Violence would silence them real quick, but I'm not stupid and wouldn't use violence to silence them, nay, I'd use a political tactic. Cuz see, they claim (the politicians and the Hollywood Elites) that they care for the poor so much, yet they don't do anything about it. Gay marriage seems to be a more important issue to them than starving children.

 

[LaMidRighter]

There are two problems I see with charitable giving currently.
1) After all of the bad news stories about misspent charitable dollars and corrupt non-profit organizations, who can you trust these days.
and
2) After I work all f*#ing year I get two keep maybe 8-9 months of it after taxation, much of those after tax dollars I feel are misspent by the government, so that puts me in a less charitable mood. It is very frustrating for someone to tell me I should care about the poor and pay more taxes when it's my a#$ getting busted for a disgusting amount of taxes to be "withheld" and my "fair share" to be paid out.
- I think alot of people feel that way as well.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Sorry, strayed from topic. We have an anti loitering law in my city, it was intended to drive the bums, I mean hobos, I mean homeless out. We had a very big problem with beggars and troublemakers when I was younger and now the idea is to encourage them to move on. I don't see how any city can ignore problem "citizens", this could be defined as anyone who discourages normal usage of any establishment public or private by it's proper target market, even worse is if a city gets hamstringed by a court or special interest group.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Their needs give them no claim on whats mine. Unemployment and poverty will never be eliminated, in fact most unemployment in America today is frictional.

Amen! my thoughts exactly, my effort, my money. Anything that has a "your" instead of "my" in front of it(especially problems) is really not a concern to me and shouldn't be.

 

[LeftyHenry]

I was watching Special Report: W/ Brit Hume on Fox yesterday

Oh yes the most unbiased name in news...

 

[aquapub]

I was watching Special Report: W/ Brit Hume on Fox yesterday and saw a report about how some businesses in Los Angeles have to close their stores because the bums are literally camping out in the front of the stores; in tents, boxes, sleeping bags, you name it. But the police can't arrest these bums or re-locate them to anywhere else because 'these people are economically challenged (more PCBS) and need to be left alone'. So they camp, and most people wouldn't want to shop at a store that has bums sitting in front of it, shaking them down for a buck. I wouldn't tolerate that either, especially since I don't have much spare for myself to begin with anyways.
[Just a side thing here; if those bums can camp out in the street in a tent, then why can't they go move out into the woods and camp out there? Camping in the woods makes a lot more sense than camping in the streets]

But to get on topic (the above paragraph was background info), LA is one of America's most liberal cities (besides San Francisco, Seattle, etc.) and liberals are supposedly all about helping the poor (aka: bums). So, WHY THE HELL AIN'T THEY HELPING THESES BUMS... I mean.... ECONOMICALLY CHALLENGED INDIVIDUALS? I don't blame the lower income libs, but I do blame the lib leadership. They have more cash than anyone else, as do those Hollywoodites. Why don't THEY give their extra cash to a home to put these bums in? (How much cash does Tom Cruise have? Like 100 Mil I'm guessing). You know, this could also go towards republicans too. They want to stop being accused of not caring for the poor? They why the hell don't they prove that they care and give some of their extra cash away?

Because both the left AND the right make these false promises in the hopes of getting their vote.
Poverty can't end until people learn to cooperate and learn to make a few sacrifices in life.
I'm not trying to say that these politicians/Hollywoodites HAVE TO give their money away, but they need to either put up or shut up. And this is straight from the ***'s mouth! :mrgreen:

We're missing the point here. Screw drunks and psychos (99% of the bums). The bigger problem here is that the people who work for a living are getting screwed out of jobs because of liberal policies. THAT'S the Left's legacy (a far more pressing disaster), which you touched base on, but abandoned to dwell on bums.

-Labor unions needlessly make it unaffordable for American employers to employ Americans, so they go out of business or go to China (like many of the small businesses in France-because liberal policies don't work).

-High taxes cripple employment.

-Frivolous lawsuits CAUSED the health care crisis. For years, the only thing standing in the way of EVERY SINGLE KIND of tort reforms...is Democrats-who make a ton of money on trial lawyers.

-Democrats advocate open borders (not that W is much better on this one), which raises our health care costs (because illegals get "free" health care), it raises our taxes through prison crowding and tremendous cost hikes in our schools (language barrier, class overcrowding).

-If liberals would have had their way on Kyoto, America, and only America, would have had to cut production by 1/3.

-Liberals run from our enemies and don't respond when they attack us, which causes economic devastation like...9/11.

 

[aps]

We're missing the point here. Screw drunks and psychos (99% of the bums). The bigger problem here is that the people who work for a living are getting screwed out of jobs because of liberal policies. THAT'S the Left's legacy (a far more pressing disaster), which you touched base on, but abandoned to dwell on bums.

-Labor unions needlessly make it unaffordable for American employers to employ Americans, so they go out of business or go to China (like many of the small businesses in France-because liberal policies don't work).

-High taxes cripple employment.

-Frivolous lawsuits CAUSED the health care crisis. For years, the only thing standing in the way of EVERY SINGLE KIND of tort reforms...is Democrats-who make a ton of money on trial lawyers.

-Democrats advocate open borders (not that W is much better on this one), which raises our health care costs (because illegals get "free" health care), it raises our taxes through prison crowding and tremendous cost hikes in our schools (language barrier, class overcrowding).

-If liberals would have had their way on Kyoto, America, and only America, would have had to cut production by 1/3.

-Liberals run from our enemies and don't respond when they attack us, which causes economic devastation like...9/11.

Do you ever have anything to say that doesn't bash liberals? If you were married and your marriage ended because you were beating the crap out of your wife, I wonder if you would find a way to blame liberals for that. :roll:

 

[taxedout]

Of course the Dem leaders care for the poor.
They like to show their care by using your money.

 

[Provoker]

Lies. They don't care for the poor. With social polarization in effect, and the richer getting richer and poor poorer, the politicians need the poor for voting power. The poor must be given money because if they don't politicians are in danger of losing voting power. So, they impliment policies and allocate just enough crumbs (nothing to substantial) in synchronization with the marginalized so they can remain in power with their crony capitalists. The crony capitalists are who they really work for. Shedding a few resources to the poor is just a way of legitamizing and sustaining their power in this prissy flawed system we call "democracy". To answer the original question: Every philosophy also conceals a philosophy, every opinion - a hiding-place, every word- a mask. Political narcissists care about themselves and there cronies. It is necessary that this is the case, for if it wasn't and they were actually ethical they wouldn't be able to compete with the unethical politicans. It is necessary that all politicians are liars and don't hold constant values.

 

[jamesrage]

I was watching Special Report: W/ Brit Hume on Fox yesterday and saw a report about how some businesses in Los Angeles have to close their stores because the bums are literally camping out in the front of the stores; in tents, boxes, sleeping bags, you name it. But the police can't arrest these bums or re-locate them to anywhere else because 'these people are economically challenged (more PCBS) and need to be left alone'. So they camp, and most people wouldn't want to shop at a store that has bums sitting in front of it, shaking them down for a buck. I wouldn't tolerate that either, especially since I don't have much spare for myself to begin with anyways.
[Just a side thing here; if those bums can camp out in the street in a tent, then why can't they go move out into the woods and camp out there? Camping in the woods makes a lot more sense than camping in the streets]

But there are not several thousand suckers in the woods to give them booze and drug money.

But to get on topic (the above paragraph was background info), LA is one of America's most liberal cities (besides San Francisco, Seattle, etc.) and liberals are supposedly all about helping the poor (aka: bums). So, WHY THE HELL AIN'T THEY HELPING THESES BUMS... I mean.... ECONOMICALLY CHALLENGED INDIVIDUALS? I don't blame the lower income libs, but I do blame the lib leadership. They have more cash than anyone else, as do those Hollywoodites. Why don't THEY give their extra cash to a home to put these bums in? (How much cash does Tom Cruise have? Like 100 Mil I'm guessing). You know, this could also go towards republicans too. They want to stop being accused of not caring for the poor? They why the hell don't they prove that they care and give some of their extra cash away?

I heard of the term outdoor urban dweller.I find it amusing some of these morons will fight tooth and nail for these bums to harrass business owners but would proably get sercurity to drive anyone camping out in front of their place.

Because both the left AND the right make these false promises in the hopes of getting their vote.
Poverty can't end until people learn to cooperate and learn to make a few sacrifices in life.
I'm not trying to say that these politicians/Hollywoodites HAVE TO give their money away, but they need to either put up or shut up. And this is straight from the ***'s mouth! :mrgreen:

I think think the problem is that we created this system that encourages lazyness instead of hard work.Alot of people are just contempt with just the bare necessities and mooching off other people.I really doubt these bums in camping out in these high traffic areas are that poor.Every once in a while in my town one the local news stations will send a undercover reporter disguised as a bum to stand on a corner for a few hours and every time they do this, the undercover reporter rakes in.

 

[taxedout]

Lies. They don't care for the poor. With social polarization in effect, and the richer getting richer and poor poorer, the politicians need the poor for voting power. The poor must be given money because if they don't politicians are in danger of losing voting power. So, they impliment policies and allocate just enough crumbs (nothing to substantial) in synchronization with the marginalized so they can remain in power with their crony capitalists. The crony capitalists are who they really work for. Shedding a few resources to the poor is just a way of legitamizing and sustaining their power in this prissy flawed system we call "democracy". To answer the original question: Every philosophy also conceals a philosophy, every opinion - a hiding-place, every word- a mask. Political narcissists care about themselves and there cronies. It is necessary that this is the case, for if it wasn't and they were actually ethical they wouldn't be able to compete with the unethical politicans. It is necessary that all politicians are liars and don't hold constant values.

You have made a very eloquent argument that breaks down by the use of the two words I highlighted in red. You have hit the nail on the head in the fact that all who attain power will strive for the same goal. Lumping this attribute of human nature onto the head of capitalism and democracy is misguided. Other forms of governmnet and economics place other humans into positions of power, humans prone to the same power grabbing exploitation of the little guy.

Your accurate assessment of human nature and power is an excellent argument for the strict limitation of governmnet. All government, if allowed unrestricted growth, puts the citizen at risk of exploitation and abuse. I'll chose human liberty over governmnet controll and management any day. I'd rather have the freedom to pursue succes, accepting the risk of utter failure, than guaranteed eternal mediocrity at the hands of my governmnet.

 

[The Truth-Bringer]

Democrats pretend to care for the poor and exploited (a lot actually do) but they fail in practical terms or ability to do so.

The leaders themselves see the poor only as a tool to possibly gain support and power, other than that they would discard the poor.

 

[taxedout]

Keep the poor alive and desperate so that they will still need you when the next election comes around.

 

[The Truth-Bringer]

very true....

 

[Joby]

The main problem, nationally, is that we're still going with this supply-side BS instead of demand-side. You can thank Reagan, but spending billions to major corporations Then giving those same corporations Billions in tax cuts-instead of the middle class-is the problem.

What supposedly happens:
Supply Side: Billions in tax cuts given to corporations, prices go down, hiring up, spending up, yay!

Demand Side: Tax cuts to middle class, spending goes up, hiring gos up, yay!

What Really happens:
Supply Side: Billions in tax cuts are given to, for one, insurance companies. They pocket the money, insurance premiums go through the roof, millions become uninsured while doctors cater to those able to pay (and illegals and poor kids), stock prices go up (look at the DOW), rich get richer, middle stagnates, then recedes, less investment, stocks stagnate, more rich tax cuts, repeat--Unless this has been done too many times and you're trillions in debt. For now, just more rich tax cuts and let kids pay eventually.

Demand Side: Lower middle class gets Billions in tax cuts, spending increases, Healthcare premiums still through the roof but more are able to pay, more Doctors are demanded, more nurses demanded, more hospitals demanded, Stocks go up after a delay (look at 1990s), rich get richer, middle slowly but steadily gets better, as more lower class enter middle class tax burden is divided, Raise taxes to pay deficit, eventually begin to cut taxes, repeat

Leftist Democrats who aren't too busy with the liberal agenda(gays) remember this, like Clinton (to a degree). When you vote for Bush you vote supply side.

Basically, it's: Should the Upper or Middle pay?
1% owns 45% of the wealth, so you know what my answer is.

 

[taxedout]

The republicans give no real tax breaks to the middle class. It's a sham.
AMT is the name of the game now.

As for the dems, their solution is to raise taxes on the "rich".
Unfortunately they create their own definition of rich. Suddenly if you make over 150 - 200K you are the greedy rich, source of all evil in our country,and deserving of punishment. Meanwhile the complex codes, and how you define income keep the actual RICH form paying comparable rates to the rest of us. The middle class takes it in the backside again.

There is no way out for the middle class. Our collectivist leaders in both parties are seeing to it that we will soon be extinct.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

The republicans give no real tax breaks to the middle class. It's a sham.
AMT is the name of the game now.

As for the dems, their solution is to raise taxes on the "rich".
Unfortunately they create their own definition of rich. Suddenly if you make over 150 - 200K you are the greedy rich, source of all evil in our country,and deserving of punishment. Meanwhile the complex codes, and how you define income keep the actual RICH form paying comparable rates to the rest of us. The middle class takes it in the backside again.

There is no way out for the middle class. Our collectivist leaders in both parties are seeing to it that we will soon be extinct.

Why is it those less likely to require social services are those most likely to be taxed for them?

What is the deal with the "make the rich pay" school of thought? Is the reason simply "because they have more to take from?"

 

[Joby]

Why is it those less likely to require social services are those most likely to be taxed for them?

What is the deal with the "make the rich pay" school of thought? Is the reason simply "because they have more to take from?"

Right now, the middle class pays most of the taxes, even though it doesn't have most of the wealth. The wealthy pay a smaller percent of their money to taxes, and, personally I believe this to be incorrect. I'm no communist, but I would vote for a "wealth tax".

And also, I would vote for a similiar increase on the lower class, because they would need to spend less on things like healthcare.

The amount someone would be taxed would all be relative to their income and their assets. Moreover, I wouldn't allow for 800 billion in tax cuts to Oil companies over the next 10 years.

 

[Iriemon]

Why is it those less likely to require social services are those most likely to be taxed for them?

What is the deal with the "make the rich pay" school of thought? Is the reason simply "because they have more to take from?"

Basically.

 

[taxedout]

Why is it those less likely to require social services are those most likely to be taxed for them?

What is the deal with the "make the rich pay" school of thought? Is the reason simply "because they have more to take from?"

I don't think the rich should have to pay a higher rate.
We all have equal stake in this society. Nobody benefits from society any more than the next guy. Certain individuals in our society may have been able to make more, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be taxed unevenly.
I do have a beef with a complicated tax code that takes aim at the middle class and allows the wealthier citizens to hide their money much more effectively.
Tax simply and evenly. Those that make more should pay more, but at an equal rate.

 

[Iriemon]

I don't think the rich should have to pay a higher rate.
We all have equal stake in this society. Nobody benefits from society any more than the next guy. Certain individuals in our society may have been able to make more, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be taxed unevenly.
I do have a beef with a complicated tax code that takes aim at the middle class and allows the wealthier citizens to hide their money much more effectively.
Tax simply and evenly. Those that make more should pay more, but at an equal rate.

A 25% tax on a woman raising two kids making $16k is a crushing burden. A 40% tax on a guy making a million means he may have to buy a little smaller yacht.

 

[talloulou]

I was watching Special Report: W/ Brit Hume on Fox yesterday and saw a report about how some businesses in Los Angeles have to close their stores because the bums are literally camping out in the front of the stores; in tents, boxes, sleeping bags, you name it. But the police can't arrest these bums or re-locate them to anywhere else because 'these people are economically challenged (more PCBS) and need to be left alone'. So they camp, and most people wouldn't want to shop at a store that has bums sitting in front of it, shaking them down for a buck. I wouldn't tolerate that either, especially since I don't have much spare for myself to begin with anyways.
[Just a side thing here; if those bums can camp out in the street in a tent, then why can't they go move out into the woods and camp out there? Camping in the woods makes a lot more sense than camping in the streets]

But to get on topic (the above paragraph was background info), LA is one of America's most liberal cities (besides San Francisco, Seattle, etc.) and liberals are supposedly all about helping the poor (aka: bums). So, WHY THE HELL AIN'T THEY HELPING THESES BUMS... I mean.... ECONOMICALLY CHALLENGED INDIVIDUALS? I don't blame the lower income libs, but I do blame the lib leadership. They have more cash than anyone else, as do those Hollywoodites. Why don't THEY give their extra cash to a home to put these bums in? (How much cash does Tom Cruise have? Like 100 Mil I'm guessing). You know, this could also go towards republicans too. They want to stop being accused of not caring for the poor? They why the hell don't they prove that they care and give some of their extra cash away?

Because both the left AND the right make these false promises in the hopes of getting their vote.
Poverty can't end until people learn to cooperate and learn to make a few sacrifices in life.
I'm not trying to say that these politicians/Hollywoodites HAVE TO give their money away, but they need to either put up or shut up. And this is straight from the ***'s mouth! :mrgreen:

People are trying to help the homeless. Unfortunately we haven't figured out the proper formula for helping them. Many seem to think building more shelters will do it......but there is the whole problem with "build it and they will come" and you end up importing even more homeless if you offer too many homeless benefits in your area.

Also alot of the homeless are people with genuine "mental" problems. Even more so than just drug and alcohol addiction....many of these people are literally out of their minds and there basically aren't mental institutes anymore so these people are just living la vida loco out on the streets.

Then you have the whole problem of whether or not to give beggars money. Does it help or only encourage the behavior?

Then there are the kids...the teens. And you never know if this kid is homeless because he is running away from some horrible **** or if the kid is just an asshole whose parents are at home terrified that something bad has happened to their punk child.