GBFAN
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2013
- Messages
- 945
- Reaction score
- 295
- Location
- Colorado Springs, CO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Their has been a decrease in these programs, not increase.
Poverty rates in america do not adjust for cost of living since the late 60s, only for inflation. Which is insane.
It is your bs that does not pass the truth or logic or any other test. Have you ever seen a poor person?
Do us a favor ... prove your point.
Take the median income in 1993 ... add to it the value of the government programs available to them.
Do the same for 2013.
Adjust for inflation .... and get back to us.
Well why don't you elaborate instead of making silly comments? How much did your family make? How many ppl were their? Simple things like that prove your statements... Or disprove... What EV's...
How would I value government programs? That's kinda hard to figure... Kinda depends on the state too A much simpler way would be to study history and fact. Like the fact that Clinton took a huge chunk outta welfare in 94
Alhough I spose since the affordable care act was past cost of living went down a bit, which probably counters the welfare cuts clinton did... However bush cut it more so that would not be accounted for...
Or the fact that we have only factored in for inflation and not the cost of living since the 60s...
Frankly I don't understand what that would prove, and what i was saying is that we don't factor in cost of living increases... Median income is irrelevant of cost of living outpaces it...
I was borrowing the socialist argument and stretching to it's logical limits to demonstrate its absurdity. The idea we should pay for things because it benefits all of us logically leads to the conclusion that we should almost pay for everything. I suppose you are right about cars as we could just as easily provide them bus fare, but the point appears to stand none the less. Really, if you think about it, Orwell was right to stretch this argument to everything except entertainment.
I don't know what you mean, a household with employment still can receive aid.
Conservative ideals are anti ppl. This country has gone so far to the right its absurd.
Liberalism is dead Obama and Clinton proved that.
It's indisputable fact that income inequality in the United States has grown substantially in the past few decades.
Median nominal incomes, adjusted for inflation, have not gone up in the USA since the 50's. (Median is the halfway point, so we are talking about the middle-earner). In contrast, the per capita GDP has risen quite dramatically, due to the increased purchasing power of the upper echelon.
I pose three questions to you:
1.) What has caused this phenomenon
2.) What are the long term implications if the trend is allowed to continue
3.) What, if anything, should be done to adjust our course
Thanks
Sigh...lets explore some data:Why do you say indisputable. Not only is it but your premis is nothing but Democratic Party talking point lies.
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Table 4 shows clearly the changes are nominal and in fact minuscule over nearly 90 years. Also the table is based solely on percentage where as 1% in 1922 was 1.2 million and 1% today is distributed over 3.2 million.
Take your talking points for the DNC back to your beloved underground and do not state your opinion as fact.
Actually, it's pretty simple ... Google to the rescue.
This week, the Cato Institute released a new study calculating the state-by-state value of this typical welfare package for a mother with two children participating in seven common welfare programs — Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), food stamps (SNAP), Medicaid, housing assistance, WIC, energy assistance (LIHEAP), and free commodities. We found that, in 2013, the value of those benefits varied widely across states, from a low of $16,984 in Mississippi to an astonishing high of $49,175 in Hawaii.
In nine states — Hawaii, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maryland — as well as Washington, D.C., annual benefits were worth more than $35,000 a year. The median value of the welfare package across the 50 states is $28,500.
Do the same for 1993.
You said that welfare had stagnated for the past 50 years ... the numbers say otherwise. If THAT error is noted, it casts doubt on the rest of your commentary. Maybe you need to prove all of them ...
Cato's study was full of ****. Their "typical welfare family" was absurd. Not at all representative of reality. They just fabricated a theoretical family collecting the maximum amount from every program, failing to account for the fact that this is impossible. (many means-tested programs count other social safety nets in their calculations, so you can't be eligible for all of them at once) Furthermore, they ignored the fact that the vast majority of those families have someone in the household working, which further reduces the total available benefits.
They ****ing lied to you, and you took it as gospel because it said what you wanted to hear.
LOL ... you are proof the easiest person to deceive is yourself. You conveniently ignore the subject of the discussion, so you can harangue about how a mother with two children participating in seven programs. If you had actually read the thread, I was told it couldn't be done ... and I showed a simple methodology that, in fact, said it could.
Give me a break ... if you don't like the numbers, present your own.
Sigh...lets explore some data:
The problem is, based on the shocking bogus methodology utilized by the study—a methodology that could only have been chosen to achieve a desired result—the claim turns out to be complete, unadulterated nonsense easily disproven through a modicum of effort and understanding no more than the basics of how welfare works and who receives the benefits.
Income redistribution is something that ALWAYS happens in America....despite the cries and whines from the right-wing about it. GBW tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans "redistributed" wealth to the wealthiest 1% of the population. Democrat tax cuts for the middle class "redistribute" wealth back to the middle class. This is the reality of living in a capitalistic society.
Like "idea"?!?So change the narrative from 1% to 10%, use media (The Atlantic left wing rag) instead of academics like idea.
I have not posted any lies, nor have you shown they are.You can lie all you want
False, in real terms the lowest quintile has lost wealth and has lower wages.the fact is the poor are better off dramatically so
Um, again, the data shows the average incomes for individuals in the top 1%, 0.1% and the 0.01%.and the to is distributed in 3x the population
You are not relying on facts, you are relying on falsehoods and rhetoric.and none of your DNC talking crap points can change those FACTS with your beloved social agenda.
It isn't Walmart. Go find me some AMerican made products to buy ANYWHERE. It's not easy to do. The finest clothing stores are selling Chinese crap.
Since when is linking to false data..... support for anHey! Pay attention!
I made no comment about the study ... evidently, trying to find information was too difficult for the left wing ... so, I simply googled to show that it COULD be done. You didn't see me agree/disagree with the example. Frankly, I didn't even bother to read it ... it was an EXAMPLE of how to collect data.
Get over it ... you can't make your argument stand up, so you want to attack an example of a google search that seems to be so much more difficult for the left to perform? Could that be because you can't find data to support your position?
Get a life ....
Since when is linking to false data..... support for anargument?
Yes there was an argument, which you then summarize:Damn, this gets boring .... there was NO argument.
There are 2 ways to show what amount of benefits families receive, reality and fantasy.Your leftie said it couldn't be done ... I took 30 seconds to do it.
What is the point in making up crap...if it is being used to show what level of benefits are available or actually received? Supporting documentation SHOULD stand, otherwise we could say anything, any level of benefits are available.....and then do a touchdown dance.We weren't discussing the content of the example.
Um, bub, this isn't the only rodeo in the thread, open your eyes.But, hey, keep gnawing on that bone ... when it's the only bone ya got, ya can't let it go.
Yes there was an argument, which you then summarize: There are 2 ways to show what amount of benefits families receive, reality and fantasy.What is the point in making up crap...if it is being used to show what level of benefits are available or actually received? Supporting documentation SHOULD stand, otherwise we could say anything, any level of benefits are available.....and then do a touchdown dance.
Big whoop.
But perhaps that is how you play, you need false victories.
Um, bub, this isn't the only rodeo in the thread, open your eyes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?