- Joined
- Jan 8, 2010
- Messages
- 83,110
- Reaction score
- 75,448
- Location
- NE Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The federal guideline for poverty is hardly an adequate measure.
How can that be? A job, well, yes, maybe a part time job, but certainly not anything that most of us would consider full employment. Minimim wage is now $7.25/hr, times a MINIMAL workweek of 40 hours a week, times 50 weeks a year is $14,500 a year, almost $4k over the federal government guidline for being "poor". A newly married couple could make nealy $30k/yr without even working any overtime on minimum wage, certainly that is not wealthy, but it can indeed pay for a modest apartment or in-law suite and a used car.
Most poor people are chronically poor. Poor forever. Poor people who are chronically poor are poor because they don't work. If they did work (grown up hours at a grown up job) they wouldn't be poor. Maybe poor if they live in some expensive areas, but no one forces them to live in those areas. People who choose to have children that they cant aford are also poor by choice - babies don't just spontaniously appear.
Depends upon which politician you ask.I dislike this thread. What is "poor" anyway?
I did a few years ago and those making under 30K strongly supported the dems. I know HS dropouts (who tend to be the poorest of any educationally stratified cohort) have been the dems most reliable bloc of voters of any group ranked by education
That would be my assumption, too -- I know you've asked for demographic charts, and I don't have any yet, but just based on historical and ideological knowledge of both groups in question, the poor would probably support the more liberal of two choices, as progressive parties tend to look out for the poor more than conservative parties.
I think the real answer is that the liberals pander to the poor. as to actually helping them that is a different matter. Do Pushers really help junkies out?
The empirical evidence says you're wrong -- take the EU as an example. Social-democrat governments across Europe help the poor, and the percentage of people living in abject poverty, as well as the percentage of people unemployed, and the crime rates, are all significantly lower than in the US. Furthermore, the poorest poor man in, say, France, lives like a king compared to the poorest poor man in the US -- the conditions of the extremely poor in the US are some of the worst in the world.
Is it spending trends or is it wage trends that is likely to make our middle class "working poor" within this decade? And if our middle class disapears, then where did all the wealth go to?
Urban poor tend to support Dems. Rural poor tend to support GOP. Rural poor don't seem to understand that the people they vote into office are there to promote the interests of huge, multinational corporations, instead of the well-being or integrity of the country.
lets stick to the USA-I don't go over and talk about countries I don't live in. Dem schemes were designed to keep people dependent on dem politicians. Subsidizing dependency increases it.
I couldn't give a rats' ass about euro-socialism
Firstly, I'd like to say that I have lived in the US. Secondly, and more importantly -- your problem is exactly as you said: You don't give a rat's arse about European-style socialism.
Which seems absolutely asinine to me, because it's working better than what you've got. If you've got a problem with the Democrats in the US (and who doesn't? The Democrats manage to blundre over every major bone their way. The Republicans get ****e done -- unfortunately, it's just all wrong and backwards), why don't you advocate looking to a system that works? We've established that you're essentially stuck between a rock and a hard place -- one party that doesn't accomplish anything, and another party that accomplishes only bad things.
What reason do you have, other than base bigotry and xenophobia, for eschewing European-style social democracy or socialism?
your value system is different from mine--I prefer freedom and if that means the people who work hard and succeed are not punished to pay for those who do not-so be it. Besides I heavily support charities--I just don't believe in giving the government much, if any power, to redistribute income-especially at an unconstitutional federal level.
I hate socialism because it is anti-freedom. Get it?
I understand that the word 'socialism' in the US has come to be demonised, through McCarthyism and decades of Red Terror. But if I could, I'd like to show you some statistics.
Socialism as you've grown up to know it is not the same socialism practiced in Europe today. The Soviet Union was many things, some good, some bad, but it was admittedly not a very free place. That is not true, however, of the European socialism of the EU.
Democracy Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Check out the "2008 Rankings" section. The most socialist countries in the world, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway -- are also the most free. That's right, the most democratic, free peoples on Earth are socialists. The US is ranked number 18 in the world.
Take a look, please. Maybe I'll be able to change your mind about 'socialism', which has unfortunately become such a naughty word in the States.
I guess I must be writing in swahili. I oppose income redistribution when imposed by the state. I oppose being taxed to pay for other people unless they have done something to earn that support-like disabled veterans or firefighters. I oppose giving our federal government that extra or unconstitutional power because it CLEARLY violates the tenth amendment
You're not 'writing in Swahili', I understand what you're saying. I was simply referring to your comment about loving freedom -- I wanted to debase your myth that socialism somehow impedes freedom, when it's clearly the opposite.
Now, on to your second point, about income redistribution. I think the flaw in logic you've made here is believing that your tax dollars are somehow used to benefit other people. It's not so -- you pay taxes for services the state gives to you. YOUR taxes go to maintaining YOUR roads -- you couldn't maintain them yourself, could you? YOUR taxes go to YOUR healthcare -- you're not a doctor, you can't operate on yourself, could you? YOUR taxes go to YOUR education (or your children's), and while I suppose you could educate them yourself, it'd certainly not be the wide range of educational subjects they could get from several payed teachers and professors over a wide variety of subjects.
So, you're not giving taxes to the government to go pull that heroin addict out of the gutter and give him a flat and a car and a lovely life. You're paying for your own stuff, just indirectly -- because you couldn't do it yourself.
my freedom is impacted when money i earn is taken by the state and given to people who have done absolutely nothing for me
and I pay many hundreds more times than the average tax payer and I get NOTHING additonal in return from the government.
my freedom is impacted when money i earn is taken by the state and given to people who have done absolutely nothing for me
and I pay many hundreds more times than the average tax payer and I get NOTHING additonal in return from the government
You can justify statist confiscation of wealth all you want but you cannot make a valid argument that such actions do not impede freedom
I fully support taxation based on use. I even will agree to a flat tax where I will still pay for more than I use. But what I object to is a system where the many can vote up taxes on others and not suffer an increase themselves.
What you get, for being rich enough that you're in a higher tax bracket, is a functioning government. The people in the lower tax brackets are the ones paying for cheap stuff like roads, infrastructure, healthcare. They're paying for what directly affects them.
You, as someone in a higher tax bracket, are paying for the upkeep of your nation, essentially. You've been afforded the opportunity for greatness in your life by the nation you're living in, and so it is up to those who have most benefited from their place in that nation, to maintain that nation. Your taxes, as a member of the higher tax brackets, go to maintaining law, order, your military, your advanced governmental functions. They're not taking $30,000 from you for roads -- they're taking it for law, order, justice -- the things that make your society function well enough that you've been able to accumulate that wealth without being robbed, scammed, frauded, murdered, invaded, imprisoned injustly, etc.
Do you have to whine about it every day like youre in a gulag or something? Oh wait they didnt whine in the gulags...
I've heard it both ways. I've heard that the poor overwhelmingly support Democrats and that the poor overwhelmingly support Republicans. Does anyone actually have any data to support the notion of which party the poor are more likely to support?
this is a discussion board. I guess anyone who doesn't buy into your soak the rich because you are envious position is "whining"
Furthermore, the poorest poor man in, say, France, lives like a king compared to the poorest poor man in the US -- the conditions of the extremely poor in the US are some of the worst in the world.
I understand that the word 'socialism' in the US has come to be demonised, through McCarthyism and decades of Red Terror. But if I could, I'd like to show you some statistics.
Socialism as you've grown up to know it is not the same socialism practiced in Europe today. The Soviet Union was many things, some good, some bad, but it was admittedly not a very free place. That is not true, however, of the European socialism of the EU.
Democracy Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Check out the "2008 Rankings" section. The most socialist countries in the world, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Norway -- are also the most free. That's right, the most democratic, free peoples on Earth are socialists. The US is ranked number 18 in the world.
Take a look, please. Maybe I'll be able to change your mind about 'socialism', which has unfortunately become such a naughty word in the States.
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?