jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (109 posts)

Ashamed of this country and it's attitude to the poor.

  1. Josak profile image59
    Josakposted 3 years ago

    Earlier I read a forum thread intended to smear the poor as lazy and entitled. It sickened me. This forum post will prove with incontrovertible government figures that this is a falsehood and/or a lie.

    First the figures:
    First off 91% of welfare dollars last year went to working households, the disabled and the elderly. Then 5% went to people on Veterans benefits. Almost 3% percent went to single parents. That makes 99% who are obviously not "entitled" or sponging.
    That leaves 1% of welfare spending now of those most are surely people who cannot find a job or who recently lost theirs, the remnant is so small as to be mathematically irrelevant, just fractions of one percent of welfare recipients.
    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

    1. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Also this from the other thread: Let me just add that I don't care about the personal and almost always fallacious or dishonest anecdotes people will give about all those welfare sponges they know, the statistical facts trump dubious personal stories.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image95
        Reality Bytesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I am 100% with you on this one Josak.  I deal with low income individuals everyday.  To be honest, some of the best people I have ever met.  Non- judgmental, kind, and the most generous people I have ever met.  They can not be placed in a group for judgment.  Each one is unique, with their own stories of how they ended up where they are, some truly heartbreaking stories.

        I am leaving right now to share dinner with a disabled vet that was crippled by lithium overdoses administered to him by VA doctors.  He is intelligent, talented, and truly one of the most compassionate persons I know.  He constantly asks my wife and I over for dinner because he is alone the majority of the time.  I also help him with his GSD puppy that he recently acquired.

        Just one of many stories I hear everyday.

        1. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well said Reality Bytes, it's a sad state of affairs when a society turns on those who are doing it tough. Enjoy the dinner and let him know his service is appreciated.

    2. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Ashamed of this country - based on a forum thread?
      Pretty strong condemnation of a "country" that is providing the benefits you tout as misunderstood.

      Are you that easily ashamed by other opinionated forum threads? How about some of those vitriolic tweets? Do they make you ashamed of your country too?

      Does every knothead with a keyboard or video camera represent this country to you?

      GA

      1. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        It was obviously not just the one forum post, it's a widespread attitude held by many Americans, obviously not all but it's significant and that is very sad.

    3. Quilligrapher profile image91
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Excellant data, Josak. Thank you for posting this link.
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

    4. gmwilliams profile image82
      gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Josak, did YOU read the disclaimer in the thread?  I suggest you read the disclaimer first before commenting and posting, thank you.  Everyone knows that some people are poor through no fault of their own such as some elderly, the recently fired, downsized who are unemployed through no fault of their own, and the physically, emotionally, mentally, and psychological handicapped.  They should receive aid, welfare, and assistance.  The recently and temporary poor should also receive assistance and a hands up.   

      However......it is so sad how some people can't read......well, I have digressed, there are people who are generationally poor.  These people have inculcated a mentality and consciousness that they are downtrodden and that society OWES them.  These people REFUSE and WILL NOT help themselves under any circumstances. 

      These are the people who unthinkingly and selfishly have children that they KNOW they can't support but THEY have them anyway much to the detriment of the children involved.  I believe in telling it like it is, no BS, straight, no chaser.  Josak, there ARE people out there who "bemoan" the fact that they are poor yet they are content with the lifestyle.   There are opportunities in this country to rise beyond one's circumstances, my parents, some of my relatives, and some of my poorer classmates DID it.

      Now, to continue with the conversation at hand.  Many poor people in this country have a fatalistic and passive ideology.  In fact, they have a victim mentality.  They feel that "THE MAN" or "OTHERS"  are sticking it to and/or oppressing them.  This victimology nonsense has got to stop and stop now.   Many people are becoming wary of this inane bullcrap. 

      These poor do not want to work nor improve themselves, they prefer to hate the more affluent classes while continuing in their psychopathological behavior which will continue the poverty of their ancestors.   People are responsible and accountable to themselves.  At least that what I'VE been taught as a child by my parents and teachers.   These poor are DIAMETRICALLY different from the middle, upper middle, and upper classes.

      I attended school with a few poor children and have poor relatives and they exhibit the mentality that I have mentioned in my previous thread on the subject.  They are HAPPY with their lot, want OTHERS to support them, and THEY refuse to help themselves.  That's ALL I have to say on the subject at hand.  If they WEREN'T so lazy, they WOULDN'T be POOR! YES, I SAID IT and I'M NOT BACKING DOWN!

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
        Uninvited Writerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Blah, blah, blah, blah. As I said, you are a sanctimonious judgemental person.... you don't know everything.

      2. JimMiles profile image83
        JimMilesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Josak: "I don't care about the personal and almost always fallacious or dishonest anecdotes people will give about all those welfare sponges they know, the statistical facts trump dubious personal stories."

        gwilliams:fallacious, dubious anecdotes

        Me: Yeah. I prefer facts, too, Josak.

      3. JimMiles profile image83
        JimMilesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Even if we concede the point that some (certainly not most, or all) of the poor have acquired the attitudes of a contentedly dependent victim of circumstances, there exists the very real possibility of an external cause for that attitude. I grant that human beings are in control of their own attitudes, even if not in control of their circumstances. But the modern forces of the PR/ advertising industry and the dumbing down of publicly-funded education could conspire to reinforce those attitudes in the poor, to the benefit of the wealthiest classes.

        I'm not suggesting an actual conspiracy here, but simply that generational neglect of the poor has contributed to a harmful Stockholm Syndrome-like learned helplessness in them. And the wealthy, finding the encouragement of such victim attitudes a much better investment than actually helping lift the poor out of their poverty (and thus competing with them for scarce resources), therefore shut off any kind of expenditures or efforts to change the attitudes in question.

        Only the middle class, those who inadvertently shield the wealthy from ever having contact with the poorest of the poor, could imagine trying to help someone out of their poverty. It wouldn't profit the wealthiest classes to do so.

        It doesn't seem reasonable, however, to leap to the conclusion that anyone prefers to be poor and without meaningful labor. Religion, in fact, is one tool that the wealthy could wield to delude the poor into being content with their lot in life, and to expect charity as a part of the spiritual economy arising from most religions. I'm not suggesting that the wealthy actually do this, because I've not researched the relevant evidence. But I would not be surprised to find it to be so.

        1. gmwilliams profile image82
          gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8219871_f248.jpg

          Again, more of this nonsense of it's NOT their fault. Oh, yeah, if I am poor, it is actually NOT my fault, it's THE MAN who is making me poor!  Oh golly, why I didn't THINK of that!  Yada yada yada ad nauseum and ad infinitum...........zzzzzzzzzzzz

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Provable fact and nonsense are not the same thing, provable fact vs ranting and stereotypes is not even a competition.

      4. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yes I read your disclaimer, which is why I went ahead and proved you mathematically wrong. These people you are referring to really don't exist we are talking about at worst 0.1% of the population, probably less.

        You can "not back down" all you want you will still be provably wrong. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

        Referring to this incredibly minute group of people as "the poor" is like me calling the black population on death row "the black community" completely wrong and prejudicial.

        Without any facts or data your long rants have no vapidity and are nothing more than a joke.

      5. Quilligrapher profile image91
        Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        My dear Ms. Williams,

        I am impressed by your ability to launch a series of threads about a huge and extremely complex social issue. From my perspective at least, you have gotten off to a bad start.

        In your words, "There are people who are generationally poor.  These people REFUSE and WILL NOT help themselves under any circumstances."

        It would appear, Ms. Williams, you have made a false assumption. The generationally poor are those trapped in the cycle of poverty for three or more generations. They are among the poverty-stricken individuals who have experienced disadvantages as a result of their poverty, which in turn increased their poverty. The fact is, Ms. Williams, research indicates "these people" can not help themselves no matter how hard they try! You would have us believe effort is all that is necessary while studies indicate effort is often times useless and ineffective. Your assumption, in this case, is diametrically opposed to what is widely accepted today in the field of economics.

        A paper presented in France during a 2004 symposium titled "Do poor children become poor adults?" was later included in a 2006 collection of papers compiled by Miles Corak related to the dynamics of poverty . This study argues that even added money from short-term income, wages, employment etc., is not an important factor influencing intergenerational income mobility. In fact, it is not a factor at all. It concludes by stating income transfers can not be counted on to strongly promote upward mobility by pointing out that added income is not sufficient to move the poor out of generational poverty. {1}

        On the contrary, the essential ingredients are the skills and the opportunities to succeed in the labor market. Without these two elusive resources, the quagmire of poverty is inescapable and no amount of effort alone is going to have an impact on this reality. While this has historically meant promoting access to higher and higher levels of education, it is becoming increasingly important that the emphasis also needs to include preschool and early childhood education. {2}

        I thank you again, Ms. Williams, for an interesting subject that can surely educate us all about those less fortunate in our society. 
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
        {1} http://ftp.iza.org/dp1993.pdf
        {2} Ibid

    5. tirelesstraveler profile image87
      tirelesstravelerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I wish I had your faith in statistics.

    6. GA Anderson profile image86
      GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Geesh, my dumb self. I know I should just leave this topic alone, but the Curmudgeon in me won't let it go.

      So, here are a few thoughts (with only one "fact")

      I think that your link (I did read it), is a lot less applicable to the conversation, as I think it is perceived based on your context, than you think it is.

      It probably could be argued that this whole thing turns on semantics, personal perceptions, and context.

      First, and speaking only for my own perceptions...

      When I think of "entitlement and welfare" benefits - I do not think of SS and Medicare. And I would surmise that many others do the same. So when you are having a conversation about welfare and social safety net programs, I would bet that the majority of folks are not thinking of SS and medicare either - yet the link's percentages used to make your point do. So does that skew the conversation from the start?

      For instance, your link states 91% are elderly, disabled, etc... well duh! Who else would be receiving SS and Medicare benefits? But, these are mandatory benefits, not discretionary/eligibility-requirement programs that I think most people think of when you say "Welfare entitlement programs"
      I bet they are thinking stuff like food stamps, WIC, free daycare, rent assistance, et al... ie. means-tested benefits

      Do you disagree with that perception?

      Since those type "welfare/entitlement benefits" are only 35%, (US Chamber of Commerce, 2013 numbers) of the total entitlement pie, how does that affect the 91% statement? If you remove 65% of the pie being discussed, does that also remove 65% of the participants in the 91%?

      I don't know the answer, and because of the wording of the entitlement benefits percentages in your link - I only researched enough to find the division of total benefit expenditures.

      So it now appears that if you separate the two concepts - mandatory vs. discretionary benefits, age-tested vs. means-tested entitlements, lazy bums vs. retired workers and old ladies - how valid are your link's percentage explanations to the probable target of the conversation.

      Would that mean that without including SS and Medicare benefits, now the "elderly, disabled, working households, etc..." are only 32% of the benefit recipients? Hmmm, I don't know either, but it sure looks like that 91% argument  is a lot less valid than when you started with it.

      I would venture that my perception and impression, (now there's an open door for you), of the conversation - redefined to be discussing only the "welfare benefits" I described, not SS and Medicare your link and argument includes, is more accurate than your "rebuttal" facts want to show it to be.

      But maybe I misunderstood you. Maybe I'm the one that's wrong.

      When you talk about welfare programs, and the controversy about their abuse, are you thinking of SS and Medicare?

      When you formulated your "Ashamed" statement, were you thinking that the people that espoused the remarks that made you ashamed were also thinking about SS and Medicare when they made their remarks?

      Do you think it illogical to separate elderly SS and Medicare retirees from conversations about food stamp abuse, welfare support payments for multiple kids to unmarried mothers, and all those other nasty accusations from folks that perceive an injustice when they see a carload of kids piling out of a new Escalade SUV for their medicaid doctors appointments, or food stamp funded grocery carts loaded with steaks, sodas, and chips?

      GA

      1. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        SS and medicare are welfare programs pure and simple, people use them all the time when they discuss the percentage of people on welfare so it's completely fair to do so in the opposite direction.

        They are regularly included in the cost of welfare programs to highlight how much of an "entitlement society" we supposedly are.

        They are regularly included in charts to show how more and more people are on welfare.

        They are regularly demonstrated to be part of the huge percentage of Americans receiving welfare.

        Mandatory programs are the MAJORITY of welfare spending.

        So turnabout is fair play.

        But interestingly the study does cover ONLY discretionary/means tested spending which makes up only a fraction of welfare and still finds that 83% goes to disabled, working or elderly households which does not cover single parents, veterans etc. So actually the figures are pretty similar. A mere 8% difference.

        Adding to that the study also finds that most discretionary/means tested spending goes to middle class households not these oh so evil "poor" just further reinforcing the point of this thread.

        Thanks for the interesting analysis.

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well... I was right. I knew I should leave this topic alone...

          I still believe you are wrong for "being ashamed" of your country because of any group's opinion. To the contrary, I think you should be proud of your country because such public vocalization is possible.

          And I still think the perception of the situation points to a serious problem - the increase in numbers of program participants is a staggering indicator of a trend for reliance on government support.

          The world is full of knuckleheads, and they are usually the ones that get the most attention.

          I'm sure you have head the old "one bad apple spoils the barrel..." adage. I know that when I see the examples mentioned earlier - I don't stop to think that they may be the exception - rather than the rule. But that is my problem, not my country's.

          Your point about the misconception of who gets the most, and for what, is accurate, and beneficial to point out. Just don't make me work so hard to get the point next time.

          GA

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Well I am glad you didn't leave it alone.

            Perhaps you are right, I did write the title while angry and that can indeed make one prone to exaggeration, a few loud, misinformed people are not a valid view of a nation.

            I don't think the current trend is an indicator of anything other than the current economic troubles this country faces and that should not come as any surprise to any of us. Such circumstances will of course put more people in a situation where they have to fall back on the social safety net.

            Thank you for your comments.

    7. Onusonus profile image86
      Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      It is a well documented fact that government welfare programs have never, nor will they ever lift a single person out of poverty. It is the will of the individual to make that choice. The War on Poverty started in 1964. they've have had 49 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to "the poor" and the percentage of Americans in poverty remains stagnant.
      http://quonation.com/qpics/Franklin_Doing_Good_To_The_Poor.jpg

      1. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Fascinating then that the countries with the biggest welfare systems have the lowest poverty percentages in the world. Which is the largest welfare aid state in the world Norway, which country has the lowest percentage of people beneath the poverty line (excluding mini nations like Luxemburg and Monaco) Norway, amazing right? Who is second in welfare state provision? Denmark, who is second in people beneath the poverty line? Denmark, hmm I see a trend developing.

        Statistically wrong as usual. The US system has been only moderately effective I will agree because it is without a doubt the worst one in the first world and fails to provide the most important services adequately. Those being health and higher education.

        On the other hand the set levels for below the poverty line in the US have been significantly changed since the beginning of the war on poverty so that statistic is also false. Someone classified as below the poverty line now is far better off on average than someone classed similarly in the 60s.

        Any more ways to be wrong? tongue

        "The Poor have little, Beggars none; the Rich too much, enough not one." ~ Benjamin Franklin.

      2. gmwilliams profile image82
        gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        +1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ! Also, THANKS to Credence2 for clarifying what I meant!  I was NEVER talking about the hard working working poor; the temporarily poor; the unemployed; underemployed; those who are mentally, physically, emoitionally, and psychological handicapped; our precious elderly-those poor people DESERVE  aid and help.  The poor who tries and works, if they NEED aid, they should have it.  They are trying, it's NOT their fault.

        However, there are the GENERATIONALLY POOR who really don't give a ----------- regarding their circumstances. They have the expectation that it is OWED and the wealthier classes should GIV'M , GIV'M, GIV'M.   They are the ones although they DON'T have the prerequisite educational qualifications, won't work for anyone although the job can be a step out of poverty.  These are the people who refuse to be educated regarding the rudiments of civilized living and behavior.  These are the people believe that if they want better, they should automatically get it!  What happened to WORK!    Onusonus, again is ON  THE BALL  and RIGHT AS USUAL!.  Josak, YOU ARE OUT OF THE BALL PARK on this one!

        1. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Again the non existent poor, as proved repeatedly above, keep banging your head against the facts all you like, it's just embarrassing now.
          The facts prove you wrong.

          This class of generationaly poor entitled people does not exist, mathematically does not. I can't make it any clearer if you still don't understand.

          Do you not understand numbers?

          1. gmwilliams profile image82
            gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, YOU'RE embarrassing !    I have seen and observed such people-NO ONE'S fault but THEIRS!  Boy, what happened to the concept of personal accountability and personal responsibility?  Oh no, THE MAN is going to lift ME UP.  I' s  poor, oh woe is me, I can't do it, waiting for THE MAN to GET me out of poverty! 

            Again, Josak, what an asinine thought.   Remember God helps those who help themselves.  What happened to self-reliance?    I am a Liberal, Black woman and it SICKENS and NAUSEATES me how many Liberals practice a policy of enabling the generational poor, blaming the wealthier classes.   Well, among some folks COMMUNISM is alive and well.  Josak, right COMRADE!  Josak, STOP smoking what YOU have been smoking, SUCH people DO exist.  I have seen them and some are within my extended family.   People who EXPECT the world to OWE and GIVE them.  Yep, THEY exist although many  LIEBERALS  are blind and refuse to acknowledge that !   

            My parents came from poor people.  In fact, one can say there were the poorest of the poor. One can say dirt, dirt poor.  By the way, my mother came from the South and my father from the West Indies.  However and that was the time before the war on poverty.  They educated themselves, worked smart, and lifted themselves OUT of poverty.  The Black poor had it very hard in the early 20th century,especially in the South. Despite that, my parentst became middle class.  They REFUSED to use poverty as a crunch.  They DID and succeeded.   

            They imbued this education and work ethic in me.  They stressed the importance of education and hard work.  They taught me that the world does not owe one a living and if one wants something, WORK and STUDY for it.  They taught me NEVER, EVER to make excuses and that FAILURE was NEVER an option.  They told me to always be personally accountable and accept responsibility for one's action, good or bad.  They also taught me the philosophy of NO EXCUSES!  Sad, this ethic is gone and awashed with this stupid and inane version of LIEBERALISM.   I am deeply ashamed of some LIEBERALS!
            http://s4.hubimg.com/u/8221427_f248.jpg

            1. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Obviously you don't understand numbers.

              They. mathematically. do. not. exist. understand?

              Just look at the stats, it's there in black and white if you would take your blinders off for the time it takes to read a report. There are none so blind as they who do not want to see.

              These people you are referring to are the unicorns of demographics. Not there. In your head. So miniscule a fraction as to make it unlikely you have ever seen one let alone several.

              It's rubbish.

              Those people are not the poor, at worst they are 0.1% of the population, probably nowhere near that. Just not there. Get it?

              Repeating something which is provably wrong won't make it true no matter how many times you do it, I am not a communist I am just someone with sufficient integrity to at least know the facts on the topic of discussion.

              There is really nothing more I can say, if you refuse to acknowledge the black and white facts which someone went ahead and put right in front of your nose for your benefit since you are too lazy to do it yourself (not that this stopped you from commenting on it anyway) that is your loss. Maye one day you'll grow up.

              1. gmwilliams profile image82
                gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                THEY do exist.  Stop smoking WHAT you'r smoking, man, it is affecting YOUR "brain".   THEY do exist it is LIEberals like YOU who are s-------------d, r------------------d, s-----------------------c, and otherwise d-----------------l who refuse to ACKNOWLEDGE the fact.  Some bleeding heart liberal who wants to see through rose colored glasses regarding the situation.  There are lazy, multigenerational poor people, I know of social workers and educators who work with such people.  My mother, as a registered nurse, had such people as ward patients.  These people have an "ethic" and philosophy which is different from the rest of us.  Boy, ARE you DELUSIONAL.  I said before, stop smoking  what you have been smoking, bro'.

                Let me EDUCATE you LIEberal.  Statistics and studies are done on a percentage of people, not a large amount.  So those statistics only covered a small percentage of poor people.  Again, WHY AM I doing THIS, there are poor people who work hard and are trying.  However, there are multigenerational poor who DON'T  give a royal s---------t  about their circumstances.  Remember, Josak, the keyword is multigenerational.  These people are imbued with an inverse work ethic and philosophy of life.   Man, OBTUSE as a 130 degree angle- SUCH people exist whether YOU wish to acknowledge it or NOT! As I said, such people EVEN exist in my extended maternal family, a second cousin, 3 first cousins, an uncle, want ME TO name more.   I can- it's ON!

                1. Josak profile image59
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Your argument now is that the government statistics are lies and you know better because your mommy told you so. It's too ridiculous for words.

                  Read the report and accept the facts or just ignore the facts and live the lie you want to believe is true.

                  Either way you are currently provably, mathematically, irrefutably WRONG. I think you know it too.

                  The facts don't change.

                  1. gmwilliams profile image82
                    gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    BS. BS. BS to the multillionth degree.  B----------------d, statistics and studies are done on a small percentage of people.  Commonsense tells one that statistics are not representative of all, it is just a microcosm.  Talking to a BRICK here.  SUCH people DO exist.  I have SEEN it and I have extended family members who fit the pathological description of the generationally poor.  I TOLD YOU TO STOP SMOKING WHAT YOU'VE BEEN SMOKING!  STOP SMOKING AND INHALING!  Believe EVERYTHING YOU READ, I don't, I think and analyze and live in THE REAL WORLD.  Josak, honey, THERE is the REAL WORLD beyond the statistics, DIDN'T they teach that to you, honey!

      3. Josak profile image59
        Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The good that particular men may do separately, in relieving the sick, is small, compared with what they may do collectively.
        Benjamin Franklin

        1. gmwilliams profile image82
          gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          zzzzzzz. The quote is ALL WRONG relating to the subjedt at hand.  The generationally poor are LAZY, not sick. The ONLY one who can HELP THEM is THEMSELVES.   When when the LIEBERALS get it!  This is not kindergarten when WE wait for others to cuddle and help US.  If one wants something, get off one's  a$$ and WORK, WORK, WORK for it!  These poor have a malady called assisitus.

          1. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I don't disagree, though of course working with others is how things are accomplished. Collectively.

        2. Onusonus profile image86
          Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I completely agree with this. Churches and other charities can do amazing things with 100% more effectiveness than any government program ever could. It's only charity if free will is accompanied with it. You get no moral high ground by forcing other people at gun point, or by threat of imprisonment to be charitable with their money. Which is exactly why you are running on a false premise for this topic. The shameful thing is the notion that government mandated wealth redistribution is somehow charitable.

          1. gmwilliams profile image82
            gmwilliamsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            AMEN, Onusonus, preach some sense to Josak!  Maybe HE'LL grow up some day!

            1. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I guess you have given up on debating against the facts then, smart move tongue

            2. Onusonus profile image86
              Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Doubtful, the principle seems to fly quietly over his head like a stealth bomber.

          2. Josak profile image59
            Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Hahaha, nice try. No that quote was in reference to a public hospital. The first in America. Benjamin Franklin was it's champion and the reason it was built. Public governmental aid, not charity.
            Fail.

            1. Onusonus profile image86
              Onusonusposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And how is our health care system doing? Nuff said.

              1. Josak profile image59
                Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                It's calculated to have saved 80 million lives since it's inception. Pretty darned well I would say.

                Nice reverse on the quote tongue

                1. JimMiles profile image83
                  JimMilesposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Are you in favor of universal health care, Josak? I have a hub about it. I think it would solve a lot of employment problems.

          3. bplusbob profile image60
            bplusbobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            For insurance to work, everyone  needs to be part of the insured pool.  Car insurance is mandated and it works. YOUR argument is based on a false premise because it has nothing to do with charity and everything to do with spreading the risk and the cost of healthcare over a larger number people.  The obstructionists are either resentful of helping the working poor, comfortable with the status quo or making a killing with their own investments in corporate healthcare and big parmaceuticals.

            1. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That is the best gol darn explanation I have heard, presented simply and honestly, in a long time.

            2. profile image60
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Is that why the very authors of Obamacare are pulling back from it as quickly as they can and demanding that House Republicans fix it, or, in the case of Obama himself, kicking the can down the road even farther?  If it is such a great notion than why not implement it TODAY.  Obama has said he will do things by "decree" if necessary and promptly declared a portion of his own healthcare plan to be premature.  Do you not see the complication.  Auto insurance does not cover oil changes and tire rotations but Obamacare would cover going to the emergency room for the sniffles.  BRILLIANT!

            3. GA Anderson profile image86
              GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              So anyone that doesn't agree with what you think is an equitable solution is an obstructionist?

              And, you see no other reason someone might not like the way our welfare system is working/not working?  I can think of a couple that don't involve being an obstructionist at all.

              GA

    8. JimMiles profile image83
      JimMilesposted 3 years ago in reply to this
      1. Shawn McIntyre profile image88
        Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this


        I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You don't get to have it both ways.

        As long as people demand to be able to buy cheap goods, then they forfeit the right to complain about wages.

        Quit shopping at Walmart, quit using Amazon, and then come talk to me about "fair wages".

        1. profile image0
          Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, for Heaven's sake... stop shopping at Walmart.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image83
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, please.

            Then my job will be a LOT easier.

            1. profile image0
              Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Do you work at Walmart? Now there are two arena's we compete in.
              We should have a bake off.

  2. Credence2 profile image86
    Credence2posted 3 years ago

    hey guys, there is a distinction between the folks that Josak and Grace are speaking of. Grace is speaking of the "underclass",  a group who lives in perpetual economic distress in good times and bad. The negative attributes given to these folks are often times quite accurate

    The people I believe Josak are talking about are people who due to a serious recession combined with fundamental and disturbing structural changes in our economy, now find themselves in trouble when they would not have been otherwise. These people have the work ethic and make all the right moves necessary to put them into middle class status or beyond. These constitute those that are falling at faster rates and increasing numbers into the realm of the dependency This is where the danger lies and the source of the unraveling of the American Dream begins

    1. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Or is it  a New American Dream, where we all share equally in the misery of privation while hating the rich?  We are, indeed, in the middle of a reconstruction of the Old American Dream.  Isn't that what we were promised, Hope and Change and all?

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I  tell the rightwinger go and fellate the arrogant wealthy  to your hearts content and hopefully in appreciation they throw a few crumbs to you from their table of bounty in addition to something to wash it down with. In their minds, the average Joe is of no more significance to them than that..


        There are several factors that caused the caused the economic circumstance that we are in but if there was one adminstration that started it all, it was Ronald Reagan. Conservatives are either wealthy already or fools to think that we all believe throwing money to these people is going to encourage them to invest in the economy rather than their own pockets

        I will take Obama's approach to that spouted on  any GOP platform.

        Retief2000, Seriously, How do you people continue to believe these things that have discredited for over 30 years, but you insist on dragging in the same old tired assumptions and fomulas.

        1. Shawn McIntyre profile image88
          Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What was it that Reagan did that caused the current economic situation?

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            great question, the link that I refer you to is a novel, but the last 6 or 7 paragraphs sum up things quite well (Conclusion or Summary)

            How Reagan Sowed the Seeds of America's Demise
            http://www.rationalrevolution.net/artic … _cause.htm

            1. Shawn McIntyre profile image88
              Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yeah, I'm not sure where that author got their stats (especially since half of the sources he cited led to 404 Pages), but he's way off. Reagan had nothing to do with the collapse in '07.

              The collapse was caused by the push for subprime lending in the '90s which lead to the housing bubble (and it's subsequent collapse), and the repeal of Glass-Steagall in '99 that lifted the separation between Investment and Commercial banking.

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Not necessarily talking about the crash, but deficit spending borrowing hug sums of money and the concept of trickle down economics, starving the treasury with massive tax breaks to the plutocrat, unsustainable military outlays, creating a foundation of an economy based upon consumer debt. I thought that the article was pretty comprehesive and am most disappointed that you do not concur.

                1. Shawn McIntyre profile image88
                  Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  The problem that I have with it (and with a growing number of economists these days), is that they're what I like to call "Political Keynesians" in that they think that government intervention is always the right policy, when history has shown us, time and time again, that the Government is nearly always the source of economic disaster.

        2. profile image60
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          And there it is, the pretense that the ever growing state is our friend and those who once employed us are our enemies.  Envy, anger, hatred of the rich does nothing but distract from the destruction of America by liberalism.  Keep your offensive fellatio reference to yourself, the slobbering dedication of liberals and the press to a failed president will, once history is recaptured from the liberal propagandists,embarrass future journalists in its obscenity.  After all, even Nero and Caligula had men brave enough to criticize them.

          1. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            There it is retief2000, the reference was not PC but quite accurate. You miss the point whatever growth in the economy is to take place must focus on the middle class. If you think that the people are going to live in this world of feudalism and become serfs at the mercy of the lords, the bougeosie, which is the foundation of what the rightwinger advocates, without a struggle, you have another thing coming....

            With the demographics going as they are it will not be a long time coming where the right as it is today will become irrelevant. A little something for you to think about before you turn in for the night.....

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Yup, not only are we becoming a more diverse society, many of the issues that the GOP is fighting to overturn have already been settled by the courts.

              But, I guess that's what you get when you try to govern on moral grounds as opposed to what makes the best public policy.

        3. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Cred - you must be having a really bad day. Your responses are usually much more grounded.

          And speaking of hearts, do you really hold such anger and wealth envy in yours?

          Do you really think the wealthy magically acquired their riches and keep them in a dark and guarded room? Never to be spent for their own comfort, or put to work to acquire more?

          It sounds like no rich person in America was ever an "Average Joe," - they all were born into it. I know you have a better grasp of history than to really believe that, yet that is what you are saying.

          Is it the "Average Joe" that creates job opportunities for others? Or venture capital for another "Average Joe's" dream?

          Are you blind to the many historical times when the "rich" were so vilified that they withdrew their money and their persons from participation? Or the results of the times when they were actually "relieved" of their "riches?" No successes to crow about there.

          In reference to Relief2000, you speak of ideas that have been discredited for 30 years... what about the "liberal" ideas that began with the New Deal Programs - 80 years and counting, isn't it the failure of those ideas that you are blaming the conservatives for?

          Or is it really as you imply - just a little more money and they will surely work?

          We have poured money hand over fist into our educational system - hardly a conservative bastion, yet where do we stand in world rankings?

          Our welfare programs have expanded available benefits year after year, yet where is the progress in our war on poverty?

          I know, just a little more money will put us over the top - right?

          Throughout history, wealth redistribution has failed - yet that is your mantra.

          Sounds like the ol' insanity definition again.

          Is it the conservatives that are responsible for Detroit's, (and other cities), problems?

          Was it the conservatives that caused the downfall of GM?

          Is it the conservatives that are making the welfare system the failure that it is?

          How much money is enough to satisfy your wealth envy?

          Here's a thought for you, in early years, philanthropists like Carnegie - in our times it's Bill Gates - rich folks committed to giving away all their wealth, but through foundations that tackled tasks to improve lives - why didn't they just divvy their money up and pass it out to the poor?

          As it appears Obama wants to do...

          GA

          1. profile image60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Agreed.  The Detroit disaster is a direct consequence of policies that drove wealth out of the city.  California and Illinois both face similar fates.  Any where that has been subjected to liberal dominance for decades is suffering from population flight and economic hardship.  I wonder if the lights will come on for the benighted if we can ever shake the liberal ideas that have eroded the Reagan legacy.  GHW Bush, Bill Clinton, GW Bush and now, Barrack Obama have all presided over a slow return to pre-Reagan ideas about the role of money, property, taxes and the State.  We could use another Reagan.

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The problem is that there is no "Reagan Legacy" that anyone should be proud of. At best, he was just as corrupt and incompetent as anyone else that we have had in office in the last 30 years.

            2. Credence2 profile image86
              Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Could we use another Reagan, yeah ,in a pigs eye!

          2. Credence2 profile image86
            Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Cred - you must be having a really bad day. Your responses are usually much more grounded.

            I say:
            On the contrary, GA, I am having a great day as always putting the Political Right on the spot.

            So let me stand my ground a bit, ok?



            And speaking of hearts, do you really hold such anger and wealth envy in yours?

            I say:

            Are you aware of the danger that consolidation of too much wealth in the hands of too few mean, are you oblivious to it? Is the gilded age your prefered time of history, Horatio Alger and all of that? The right has been most resistant to campaign finance reform making more than certain that the well heeled will use their financial influence to benefit their interests as opposed to those of the man in the street, people like the late Ted Kennedy was the exception, but there are far too few of those. A recent study reveals that a high school drop out from an affluent family has a greater chance of economic success than a graduate school student from a middle class family. So much for the idea of  upward mobility, all this sounds much more like power accumulated and maintained by privileged class.

            You, yourself, has expressed opposition to the minimum wage which 90% of the worlds nation-states have, is that really that radical for you? Are all these societies Marxist-Leninist? Obviously, the globe has far less confidence in the 'invisible hand' of the free-market than the conservatives that constantly advocate this as the solution.  The only reason that America IS America is the time honored belief that you go as far as your abilities and work will take you. If that belief fails to be substantiated in our time, then this experiment will come to an abrupt end with an  unfortunate outcome. So, you too are an advocate of those who wish empty the treasury through even greater tax breaks to the "job creators" and wait for them to offer sugar that we all anxious to gobble down, likened to the hand of a man feeding a pony?

            So, I know what you are against, any and all things that have occured since Jean Harlow was in her heyday. So, what are you for, what is your solution to the problem outside looking back at a past that was even more unacceptable?

            Do you really think the wealthy magically acquired their riches and keep them in a dark and guarded room? Never to be spent for their own comfort, or put to work to acquire more?

            I say:
            Yes, for the most part those riches are inherited, the idea of Bill Gates and Thomas Edison are exaggerated. I don't care about people having things, but don't use your wealth to control and exploit the political and economic world that we depend upon to be fair and just.

            It sounds like no rich person in America was ever an "Average Joe," - they all were born into it. I know you have a better grasp of history than to really believe that, yet that is what you are saying.

            I say:

            As I said earlier, most wealth is inherited, most have access to resources that the man on the street do not have.

            Is it the "Average Joe" that creates job opportunities for others? Or venture capital for another "Average Joe's" dream?

            I say:
            The solution to the problem is the investment the President has proposed in repairing damaged infrastructure, that is crumbling by the day. I want the employment and wealth to be driven from the middle class outwards not the top down. In a society where working people have wages the demand they create will encourge the entrepreneurs to invest and expand.

            Are you blind to the many historical times when the "rich" were so vilified that they withdrew their money and their persons from participation? Or the results of the times when they were actually "relieved" of their "riches?" No successes to crow about there.

            I say:
            No, but these are unprecendented times, and there is always a first time

            In reference to Relief2000, you speak of ideas that have been discredited for 30 years... what about the "liberal" ideas that began with the New Deal Programs - 80 years and counting, isn't it the failure of those ideas that you are blaming the conservatives for?

            I say:
            The economic squeeze that has shifted the fortunes of most middle class in a negative direction has its foundations beginning Jan 20, 1981. That is what I blaming the conservatives for.....

            Or is it really as you imply - just a little more money and they will surely work?

            I say:
            Ok, what do YOU suggest here?

            We have poured money hand over fist into our educational system - hardly a conservative bastion, yet where do we stand in world rankings?

            I say:
            What do you suggest, that we abondon compulsory education K-12, leave the schooling for the elite and let those that cannot afford a first class education clean toilets for the rest of their lives, since the idea of upward mobility is fast fading away? Obviously there is room for improvement in this area.  But, equal opportunity is the American way, if that disappears so disappears America.

            Our welfare programs have expanded available benefits year after year, yet where is the progress in our war on poverty?

            Ask the GOP why stand in the way of jobs bills that put people back to work immediately, instead waiting for a gift from Donald Trump. Reducing benefits and real wages available to workers put them, that would not other wise be, in the poverty column. Perhaps this is why I have to pay more to support social welfare programs, because far too many employers will naturally avert paying proper wages and benefits and the minimum wage is not high enough.

            Is it the conservatives that are responsible for Detroit's, (and other cities), problems?

            I say:
            No one is blaming the conservative for the structural changes in the economy that led to the downfall of some of America's greatest cities. It is just that so many of you are Monday morning quarterbacks, who seem to forget that hindsight is always 20/20.

            Was it the conservatives that caused the downfall of GM?
            Is it the conservatives that are making the welfare system the failure that it is?

            I say:

            Nobody advocates that people be kept indefinately on the dole at taxpayers expense, but your vision of a Dickensian society is not going to work. I insist that people who can work, work, I am not against that and most progressives are not against that either.

            How much money is enough to satisfy your wealth envy?

            Here's a thought for you, in early years, philanthropists like Carnegie - in our times it's Bill Gates - rich folks committed to giving away all their wealth, but through foundations that tackled tasks to improve lives - why didn't they just divvy their money up and pass it out to the poor?

            I say:
            If everyone wealthy individual were responsible like Bill Gates, we would not be having this crisis. They pay their taxes and that is the extent of their obligation to society, when I can get them to do that without cheating. There are not enough foundations and soup kitchens funded by Donald Trump and company to even dent the magnitude to the displacement of the american middle class. Most of us know that already...

            As it appears Obama wants to do...

            I say:
            As with FDR 80 years earlier, the progressive is trying to save capitalism, not destroy it. For that to happen, the greed and the greedy must be curbed.

            Cred2

            Nice to hear from you as always!!

  3. bplusbob profile image60
    bplusbobposted 3 years ago

    I defie any honest and moral American to watch this Frontline documentary and make sweeping generalizations like: "poor people are lazy."  America has become a stacked deck and the dwindling middle class has been fleeced.

    Two American Families: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline … -families/

    1. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +1

    2. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Excellent program, I saw it, these are the typical American families that are having the rug pulled out from beneath them

  4. Shawn McIntyre profile image88
    Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago

    Sorry, I'm still kinda new here, 

    Are all of the HubPages forums this much of a utopic Keynesian fan club?

    1. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      No fan of Keynes or Utopia am I.  I prefer the real.  There is no such thing as a free lunch and the sooner everyone, especially politicians, adopt that idea the better.

    2. bplusbob profile image60
      bplusbobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      You should be more sorry for the insulting condesension and simplistic labeling, than for being "new around here."

      1. Shawn McIntyre profile image88
        Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Exactly what about my question was "insulting", "condescending", or "simplistic"?

        1. bplusbob profile image60
          bplusbobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Shawn, your second question reminds me of the old Louis Armstrong quote: "If you have to ask what jazz is, you'll never know."  It suggests that you are somewhat unconscious of your own bias.

          Regarding your first question, which is based on a sweeping generalization/exaggeration about your perceived typical forum poster; you lump the many astute and thoughtful posts here into a convenient and oversimplified label and you never offer any cogent argumentation that addresses the issues.  Your contribution to this forum is just a lazy, snide and irrelevant waste of space.

          1. Shawn McIntyre profile image88
            Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Asking if the forums are a "utopic Keynesian fan club" is about as "condescending" and "insulting" as asking if everyone on the forums is a Cubs fan.

            However, if you were offended, then I apologize.

            1. bplusbob profile image60
              bplusbobposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I wasn't offended, Shawn and I require no apology.  I felt it appropriate to respond in a way that might help you recognize that your question was somewhat superficial and unneeded in a sincere discussion of issues—regardless of one's beliefs and ideology.  It might help if you looked into the motivation behind any post here.  Will your post add to the reader's awareness, or  will it merely waste the reader's time?

              1. Shawn McIntyre profile image88
                Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                For those of you keeping score at home, that's the third time he's managed to insult a fairly benign question.

                bplusbob, you've piqued my curiosity now:

                Exactly what is it about John Maynard Keynes that you find so repugnant as to declare the mere mention of him: "insulting condesension" (sic), simplistic labeling, oversimplified, lazy, snide, an "irrelevant waste of space", and "somewhat superficial"?

                Given the content of your one and only contribution to this thread (aside from insulting me that is), I find it impossible to believe that you would have a problem with Keynesian Theory.

      2. profile image60
        retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        He got it right, there are fans of Utopia and Keynes all over these forums.

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
          Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Of course, in a conservative dream world, we would just throw away all but the second amendment and replace it with scripture and "morality" based on "family values".

          1. profile image60
            retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Spaghetti is a good date meal, easy to prepare and very flexible.  Non sequitur.

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image60
              Cody Hodge5posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Lol, did that hit too close to home?

  5. profile image0
    Beth37posted 3 years ago

    I love this thread. It represents America well. You've got those who care about the poor and downtrodden, you've got those who condemn them, you've got statistics, then you've got those who judge how the statements are made even when they might agree with some of the points. People are endlessly interesting.

  6. Wayne Brown profile image87
    Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago

    You are ashamed of this country when the government's own numbers show that over $60K annually is spent on average for every household at or below the income poverty line.  That is more than many people who are not receiving anything at all make in a year yet we are not reducing the numbers , we seem to be growing them and rather rapidly in the past five years.  How much is enough...is it $100K per household? $200K.  At what point do we stop and surmize what this spending has yielded in terms of reducing or eliminating the issue.  Much like education, welfare only seems to have one song...money.

    Your citing of percentage breakdown of where the money goes communicates very little about the situation of those who receive it other than references to the elderly or handicapped.  The ratio cited above makes it quite clear where the money is going. It is going to people below the poverty line but with no measurable effect in terms of reducing the problem. My point is not to determine whether those households deserve or do not deserve it but to say that $60K per year per household in taxpayer dollars is quite generous and quite significant and if it does nothing for the problem then we need to be asking where the money is really going.

  7. GA Anderson profile image86
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    This was well stated, and more like you. But you still make the mistake of assumption.

    We agree on many things, but, apparently,  because I do not agree without reservations - I must be a Right-winger.   I am not. And I also do not think the solutions our country needs must come from the extremes of either side of the aisle.

    So...



    An enjoyable exchange. Thanks. Even if we disagree, you make a lot more sense when your "party-line talking point" bombasts are challenged. But you really should stop trying to fit everyone in some labeled box - we are almost always wrong when we do that. Almost, there are exceptions of course. Boy, wouldn't I like to name a few... oh well.

    GA

    1. profile image0
      Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      +1

    2. Credence2 profile image86
      Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Thanks, but where do we agree? Questioning the efficacy of the New Deal and the foundation it built for the American worker and economy is a BIG reservation. In our discussions on various topics it is easy to see that you lean toward the conservative point of view. While you have not proposed this, dismantling the New Deal legislation, changing Social Security, Medicare by privatizing it, is extreme in my view.

      While you may be the exception, conservatives are very consistent in being conservative over a vast array of disparate issues, those that complain about the availability of abortion, also criticize the president for taking America down a socialist path. Those that complain of an assault on the 2nd Amendment also cling to an ideal of a unfettered  free-market that has never really worked in reality. In other words, they put themselves in a 'box'. From what I have seen on these political topics, those that are conservative in one area are most probably conservative over a broad spectrum. I see that far more often than the truly independent stand. I am sure that those on the other side would say that about the left. The ideological poles are clearly marked for the most part and if you overwhelmingly take the positions advocated by one side or the another, where do you belong? Unfortunately, this is what is going on in Washington right now to the detriment of us all. We are not exactly being overrun by moderates.

      I can't always write the kind of novellas that I did in my latest response to you, but I stand behind what I say and will always provide clarification whenever I am asked.

      All the best, Cred2

      1. GA Anderson profile image86
        GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Damn! Homeless again.

        The Conservatives won't have me because I'm not anti-abortion enough for them, and I won't have the Liberals because I don't think they place enough value on individual responsibility.

        I was trying out this Independent thingie because I thought I could pick and choose what I thought was right or wrong...

        Now you tell me I can't be that either because I do have some conservative values. What to do, what to do?

        Well, I'll just make up my own label - PURPLE! I'm a Purple.
        Purples don't like abortion, but that's their belief, not the one they think should be forced on everyone else because it's none of our business.

        Purples believe in personal responsibility, ambition, and achievement, but not to the exclusion of a helping hand when needed.

        Purples think that generally some of the New Deal programs were necessary and beneficial, (they like the WPA and TVA) - but some were ill-conceived and managed. ie. AAA (sticks tongue out at you - Purples can see the merit of some Progressive ideas

        But most of all, Purples DO NOT think more government is the answer!

        So, if Washington isn't teeming with moderates, maybe its because nobody told them they were really Purples. maybe with a little moderation and flexibility, you could be a Purple too!

        Purple GA

        1. profile image0
          Beth37posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Im pink. We are purely anti abortion.

        2. bBerean profile image61
          bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          GA, I really feel I must warn you that back in the late 50s, and at least through the 70s, there was a creature in these parts who sought out Purple People.  It sheb was a wooley thing, (or was it a Sheb Wooley thing?).  Just giving you a heads up, as it still may be lurking!
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9H_cI_WCnE

          1. GA Anderson profile image86
            GA Andersonposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            LOL - thanks for the heads-up, but no worries. That ol' monster hooked up with the Monkees and has been a vegetarian ever since.

            GA

        3. Credence2 profile image86
          Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The Conservatives won't have me because I'm not anti-abortion enough for them, and I won't have the Liberals because I don't think they place enough value on individual responsibility.I was trying out this Independent thingie because I thought I could pick and choose what I thought was right or wrong...Now you tell me I can't be that either because I do have some conservative values. What to do, what to do?

          I say:
          I never said that, I just said that true hybrids are rare in today's debates. I have some conservative values but I m still to your left.

          Well, I'll just make up my own label - PURPLE! I'm a Purple.
          Purples don't like abortion, but that's their belief, not the one they think should be forced on everyone else because it's none of our business.

          Isay:
          That is not purple but blue...

          Purples believe in personal responsibility, ambition, and achievement, but not to the exclusion of a helping hand when needed.

          I say:
          Thats not purple, its blue.

          Purples think that generally some of the New Deal programs were necessary and beneficial, (they like the WPA and TVA) - but some were ill-conceived and managed. ie. AAA (sticks tongue out at you - Purples can see the merit of some Progressive ideas

          I say:
          But the far more important programs, like Social Security and minimum wage you are against? Sounds more like magenta, than purple

          But most of all, Purples DO NOT think more government is the answer!

          I say:
          Blue sees government as a partner rather than an adversary, Ronald Reagan said this, you are crimson red on this one.

          So, if Washington isn't teeming with moderates, maybe its because nobody told them they were really Purples. maybe with a little moderation and flexibility, you could be a Purple too!

          I say:
          Based on your definition of "purple", I probably lie somewhere between blue and purple, when compared with your positions, as they are not the same. Current house GOP is the red red vino on tap, there is not a comparable group holding things up on the left. Purple now belongs to Obama and moderate democrats, with whom I affiliate far more closely.
          While blood red is splatted all over Washington, I do not see blue or what you might call the radical left in the same way.

          1. Appletreedeals profile image83
            Appletreedealsposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            GA

        4. Shawn McIntyre profile image88
          Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I'm really screwed,

          I'm a Small-Government conservative who hates the 2nd Amendment, an Atheist, a social liberal, and an Austrian School economic libertarian.

          Red, Blue, Purple... I think I may be Plaid.

          smile

  8. GA Anderson profile image86
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    Big oops above - I was logged in under another account. But of course you all guessed that right?

    Appletreedeals is also GA Anderson

    GA

  9. maxoxam41 profile image78
    maxoxam41posted 3 years ago

    It is our government's responsibility to take care of the people. When it comes to implement our so-called security our government deploys all necessary measures with OUR dimes. I want my dimes to be spent on people. Who will hear my voice?
    Thanks Josak for being simply HUMANE.

    1. profile image60
      retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Perhaps being an American really means being a house pet, it used to mean being free now it means being kept.  Sadly no house pet ever can attain the free nature his wild cousins enjoy, no longer a free people we are to be wards of the state?  We are never to attain the heights, depths or breaths of our nature, just be kept, fed and babied?  What a pathetic people you describe.  I am glad I am in the last half of my life, I won't have to live on the state plantation for long.  I am angry for my children and eventual grand children, though, they shall never be truly free.

      1. Credence2 profile image86
        Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Wards of the states or slaves to corporations and aristocrats? This 'freedom' you talk about is the stuff of fairy tales and never really existed at all, except in the ideals of the right. Grizzly Adams is just a fantasy, I can not spread my wings without limits, not without bumping into yours. That is the reality of living in a civilized society, no point of fawning for a past that never was nor never will be.

        1. profile image60
          retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So you prefer the cage, just say so.  We are finished as a free people and have been since the New Deal.  I know it comforts you to have your keeper make sure your belly is full.  I would prefer to be a man and not a pet.

          1. Zelkiiro profile image83
            Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            ITT: retief2000 claims the New Deal was a bad thing, hates his fellow man, implies FDR was not one of our best freaking presidents of all time (if not THE best), and may or may not be a sociopath.

            1. profile image60
              retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Just another reason why what you say doesn't matter.

              1. Credence2 profile image86
                Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Seriously, Retief. I would really like to know why you thought early 20th century America was better? Where were you free, exploitation was the rule, everywhere. Where do you guys get this stuff from? Are you against Government regulation, you forget civilization and prefer the law of the jungle? Everybody's opinion matters, retief2000. What world are you talking about that has your favor? Do you really think that society could function today on, say, a 1915 paradyme?

                1. profile image60
                  retief2000posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  This is the way the world ends
                  This is the way the world ends
                  This is the way the world ends
                  Not with a bang but a whimper.

                  1. Credence2 profile image86
                    Credence2posted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Do you have an answer or explanation or do you couch it all in riddles?

  10. profile image0
    alexsaez1983posted 3 years ago

    I agree with you, Shawn. The whole reason these big companies like Wal Mart  and McDonald's keep wages low is so that employees will be forced to shop there. Compare that to, say, Costco, which sells products in large quantities at wholesale. Not only do they pay their employees a substantial wage, but benefits are also included. Better still, their overturn rates are astronomically low compared to low-wage companies. What the geniuses at Wal-Mart don't realize is that cutting back turnover with fair wages and benefits will save them tons of money - in fact more than they're saving by paying employees peanuts.

    1. Shawn McIntyre profile image88
      Shawn McIntyreposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The problem is the minimum wage. By inflating the cost of labor for everyone, the Government makes it harder for employees who would otherwise deserve higher wages, to demand market value for their time. It's penalizing workers and forcing them to subsidize unskilled, uneducated, and inexperienced members of the workforce.

 
working