40,000,000+ Americans in Poverty

253 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
What should be done?


What are your thoughts and why you feel this way?
#americans #poverty
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    The number will be higher tomorrow.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8806687].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author socialentry
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8806795].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Alton Hargrave
      Funny, how all this waist is making us fat. Many folks are feeling the pinch. It is so bad in this country that the president had to find a part time job. He is selling health insurance now, you probably have seen him on tv selling it. As with all sales people, he is having a tough time meeting his quota. Seems others in Washington had the same idea at the same time and they are all running around trying to sell health insurance.

      But, the real money these days is in building health insurance web sites. Maybe someone here could come up with a theme that would work. They would have to keep it below a few hundred million to be competitive though.

      Seriously, poverty is widespread and taking it's toll on everyone. Many people here have found ways to create their own business using a computer and other related skills. Others are in the process of learning. So, for many of us, we are able to support ourselves without the need of finding someone to hire us. This gives us a great advantage in life. Our computer skills, which took a lot of work to learn, are really worth a lot nowadays. Not everyone has them. I wouldn't swap mine for a pile of diplomas.

      The tv producers are capitalizing on the lack of jobs with all of these shows that depict folks making money buying collectibles, etc and reselling them. Or, going to Alaska or South American to mine for gold. Or, an easy one, wrestling alligators for their skins. The collectibles racket is one I was already involved in, and the gold mining is interesting, but I would let the alligators keep their skin and I will keep mine. If I need the alligator skin look for my seat covers and boots, I will just stick with nauga hide. They have been making stuff out of them for decades and I don't thing the nauga will ever go extinct.
      Signature

      Sales Page Builder:Make Your Own Professional Sales Pages
      Software For Collectors, Business:Check it Out

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8808127].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        Originally Posted by Alton Hargrave View Post

        Funny, how all this waist is making us fat.
        I agree. My waist is what is making me fat too.

        Sorry, It was too hard to resist. And I had to beat Riffle or Horny Devil, or a few of the other devious guys here.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8808156].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Alton Hargrave
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          I agree. My waist is what is making me fat too.

          Sorry, It was too hard to resist. And I had to beat Riffle or Horny Devil, or a few of the other devious guys here.
          Right! Me too. Sometimes, I use the wrong spelling or similar sounding word to see if anyone is paying attention. Like Archie Bunker did. You are on the ball tonight!
          Signature

          Sales Page Builder:Make Your Own Professional Sales Pages
          Software For Collectors, Business:Check it Out

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8808165].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
          Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre View Post

          I agree. My waist is what is making me fat too.

          Sorry, It was too hard to resist. And I had to beat Riffle or Horny Devil, or a few of the other devious guys here.
          Apparently that makes you the most devious among us.
          Signature

          Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8808354].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Mark Singletary
        Originally Posted by Alton Hargrave View Post

        I will just stick with nauga hide. They have been making stuff out of them for decades and I don't thing the nauga will ever go extinct.
        In an otherwise serious thread about serious problems, that right there was funny.

        Mark
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8808161].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Sarevok
        Alton just hit an epic Babe Ruth-like grand slam

        Still going, going, gone.

        (out into lansdowne street)

        Originally Posted by Alton Hargrave View Post

        Funny, how all this waist is making us fat. Many folks are feeling the pinch. It is so bad in this country that the president had to find a part time job. He is selling health insurance now, you probably have seen him on tv selling it. As with all sales people, he is having a tough time meeting his quota. Seems others in Washington had the same idea at the same time and they are all running around trying to sell health insurance.

        But, the real money these days is in building health insurance web sites. Maybe someone here could come up with a theme that would work. They would have to keep it below a few hundred million to be competitive though.

        Seriously, poverty is widespread and taking it's toll on everyone. Many people here have found ways to create their own business using a computer and other related skills. Others are in the process of learning. So, for many of us, we are able to support ourselves without the need of finding someone to hire us. This gives us a great advantage in life. Our computer skills, which took a lot of work to learn, are really worth a lot nowadays. Not everyone has them. I wouldn't swap mine for a pile of diplomas.

        The tv producers are capitalizing on the lack of jobs with all of these shows that depict folks making money buying collectibles, etc and reselling them. Or, going to Alaska or South American to mine for gold. Or, an easy one, wrestling alligators for their skins. The collectibles racket is one I was already involved in, and the gold mining is interesting, but I would let the alligators keep their skin and I will keep mine. If I need the alligator skin look for my seat covers and boots, I will just stick with nauga hide. They have been making stuff out of them for decades and I don't thing the nauga will ever go extinct.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8808190].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      But, the real money these days is in building health insurance web sites.
      Think about this.
      For what they spent on that website they could of given every American a million dollars ending poverty, everyone could afford health insurance and have plenty left to build the economy. Plus they still would of had money left over.
      It would of been cheaper then the banks and auto industry bail outs.
      How much do you want to bet that they will just raise min. wage, raise the poverty level limit, then claim to be ending poverty:rolleyes:
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8808160].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Think about this.
        For what they spent on that website they could of given every American a million dollars ending poverty, everyone could afford health insurance and have plenty left to build the economy. Plus they still would of had money left over.
        It would of been cheaper then the banks and auto industry bail outs.
        How much do you want to bet that they will just raise min. wage, raise the poverty level limit, then claim to be ending poverty:rolleyes:
        They could have given 316,668,567 people a million dollars and had money left over? The cost of this website just keeps increasing.
        Signature

        If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8808167].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

          They could have given 316,668,567 people a million dollars and had money left over? The cost of this website just keeps increasing.
          Update, Dec. 12: In testimony on Capitol Hill, Sebelius provided updated figures. She said that HHS had spent $319 million on the website through the end of October, though a total of $677 million has been obligated, meaning the amount could get that high if bills are submitted.How much did HealthCare.gov cost?
          No it was partially meant as a joke and partially meant to get people to look into the cost of all this. Think about it, they can't even work a deal to get an affordable website, yet they want us to think they can work a deal to get us affordable health insurance By the end of it we'll have another 20,000,000 at poverty level.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8808226].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            No it was partially meant as a joke and partially meant to get people to look into the cost of all this. Think about it, they can't even work a deal to get an affordable website, yet they want us to think they can work a deal to get us affordable health insurance By the end of it we'll have another 20,000,000 at poverty level.
            Oh, I'm fully onboard with you here. I was just picking on your "fuzzy" math. Although, it wouldn't surprise me if you quoted a cost in the neighborhood of $1B.
            Signature

            If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8808259].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Think about this.
        For what they spent on that website they could of given every American a million dollars ending poverty, everyone could afford health insurance and have plenty left to build the economy.
        Not much different from the Financial Meltdown of 2008.

        Had the Gov't paid off everyone's mortgages instead of throwing money at the banks, the bill would've been cheaper AND the banks would've been bailed out as well.
        Signature
        Arguing with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon.
        It'll just knock over all the pieces, poop on the board, and strut about like it's won anyway.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810344].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

          Not much different from the Financial Meltdown of 2008.

          Had the Gov't paid off everyone's mortgage(s) instead of throwing money at the banks, the bill would've been cheaper AND the banks would've been bailed out as well.
          But the bailouts were nothing but a Coup on America. If you read the articles of the FED - what happened was completely illegal - both under constitutional and corporate law. By not impeaching/recalling every rep that voted for it, and not having the banksters arrested - we completely trashed our rule of law. Oh well. Now we've got people starving in their homes, freezing to death in the streets, "cities of homeless" (the DHS out here hands out tents and sleeping bags), and people sitting in front of hospitals dying because they don't have the bucks for the hospitals to okay their treatments (a friend/customer of mine died that way).
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810464].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

          Not much different from the Financial Meltdown of 2008.

          Had the Gov't paid off everyone's mortgage(s) instead of throwing money at the banks, the bill would've been cheaper AND the banks would've been bailed out as well.
          Well, the government WAS responsible for the decline! The FAIR thing to do would have been to take the money from the responsible parties(Even if it GUTTED their pension funds), pay the bank the portion that is under water, and the borrower the portion over water, pull the requirements back to reason, and have the bank repossess any homes that should have been repossessed. THAT way, the banks don't get hurt, nobody unjustly benefits, the decline affects no decisions, bonds get paid, etc.... It would have saved a LOT of governments, etc...

          And the HARDEST parts, determining the loss and portion underwater MUST be done by the bank under federal law and/or are often done by the county assayers office for counties in most states. I believe they are done as often as twice a year, and they likely have algorithms to do it automatically. HECK, the banks ALREADY generally get the assay documents twice a year since they have to pay taxes to keep their position on the liens! Tax liens TRUMP bank liens.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810467].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    My view is to get rid of the FED and go Iceland on our leaders and banks.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807142].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
    We could start by redefining "poverty." I highly doubt there are 40,000,000 Americans who truly know what real poverty is.
    Signature

    If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807240].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

      We could start by redefining "poverty." I highly doubt there are 40,000,000 Americans who truly know what real poverty is.
      More are learning every day. We're fast becoming a third world country. How much poverty is a good thing?

      Redefining poverty does not remove it. It only allows us to deny it exists.

      And how would you redefine it? Is being turned away from a hospital when you need treatment an indicator? Being homeless? In NYC alone there are 22,000 homeless children (stats from NYT). Working but not able to afford basic necessities? Starving to death in the streets (it's happening now, the cold snap is now claiming lives of the poor who are either homeless or can't afford to heat homes. It gets worse every winter).

      Exactly how hard up does someone have to be before we are allowed to recognize them as being in bad shape?
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807284].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        More are learning every day. We're fast becoming a third world country. How much poverty is a good thing?

        Redefining poverty does not remove it. It only allows us to deny it exists.

        And how would you redefine it? Is being turned away from a hospital when you need treatment an indicator? Being homeless? In NYC alone there are 22,000 homeless children (stats from NYT). Working but not able to afford basic necessities? Starving to death in the streets (it's happening now, the cold snap is now claiming lives of the poor who are either homeless or can't afford to heat homes. It gets worse every winter).

        Exactly how hard up does someone have to be before we are allowed to recognize them as being in bad shape?
        Remove from those 40,000,000 whoever has a cell phone, big screen TV, families with two cars, employer-provided health insurance, any family that eats out more than once per week, etc.

        What I'm saying, Sal, is that the American standard for "poverty" is greatly different than, say, Africa. Show me a family in the US that can't afford or isn't given the means to filter clean water and I'll show you a family that isn't utilizing resources to even a minimum standard of competency.
        Signature

        If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807321].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

          Remove from those 40,000,000 whoever has a cell phone, big screen TV, families with two cars, employer-provided health insurance, any family that eats out more than once per week, etc.

          What I'm saying, Sal, is that the American standard for "poverty" is greatly different than, say, Africa. Show me a family in the US that can't afford or isn't given the means to filter clean water and I'll show you a family that isn't utilizing resources to even a minimum standard of competency.
          So you are saying until you are dying, you're not hard up? Dying in the street goes beyond poverty.........and there are people doing that over here now.

          I agree that if you have a couple cars, Large screen tv's - cable, etc. you are not in poverty - you are too stupid to understand the difference between necessity and want. When people are hungry and homeless, though - I don't call it no big deal because they aren't laying in the road dying - which incidentally is going on in greater numbers every winter. The amount of people now homeless in this country is pretty shameful -- especially considering that many of them actually work for a living. Decades of stagflation is starting to take its toll.

          Maybe the one word "poverty" just isn't enough to describe the varying levels of destitution.
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807410].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

            So you are saying until you are dying, you're not hard up? Dying in the street goes beyond poverty.........and there are people doing that over here now.

            I agree that if you have a couple cars, Large screen tv's - cable, etc. you are not in poverty - you are too stupid to understand the difference between necessity and want. When people are hungry and homeless, though - I don't call it no big deal because they aren't laying in the road dying - which incidentally is going on in greater numbers every winter. The amount of people now homeless in this country is pretty shameful -- especially considering that many of them actually work for a living. Decades of stagflation is starting to take its toll.

            Maybe the one word "poverty" just isn't enough to describe the varying levels of destitution.
            OH YEAH! I FORGOT about that! POVERTY means you DON'T HAVE A TV!

            I have a friend that has a nice truck, a home, worth about $700K, he is a cook, and apparently eats well. Apparently he does fine! He does NOT have a TV though! That is by choice. BTW I'm sure he doesn't have cable either. ALSO.....


            He doesn't have the latest designer/endorsed shoes!
            He doesn't have the latest style!
            He doesn't have the latest fad!

            I'm not even sure about the turkey on thanksgiving! You know how chefs can be. Maybe he cooks duck or something.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807427].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
            Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

            So you are saying until you are dying, you're not hard up?
            No, I didn't say that and you know I didn't say that. You are quite the master of hyperbole and misdirection.


            Dying in the street goes beyond poverty.........and there are people doing that over here now.
            Yes, dying in the street goes beyond poverty. I'd also venture to say that saying Americans are dying in the streets is also hyperbole.

            I agree that if you have a couple cars, Large screen tv's - cable, etc. you are not in poverty - you are too stupid to understand the difference between necessity and want. When people are hungry and homeless, though - I don't call it no big deal because they aren't laying in the road dying - which incidentally is going on in greater numbers every winter. The amount of people now homeless in this country is pretty shameful -- especially considering that many of them actually work for a living. Decades of stagflation is starting to take its toll.

            Maybe the one word "poverty" just isn't enough to describe the varying levels of destitution.
            And this is precisely what I meant. It's hard to take seriously 40,000,000 Americans living in "poverty" when American "poverty" isn't certainly a dire situation. When you can use your SNAP card at McDonalds, you aren't living in poverty.
            Signature

            If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807430].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post


              And this is precisely what I meant. It's hard to take seriously 40,000,000 Americans living in "poverty" when American "poverty" isn't certainly a dire situation. When you can use your SNAP card at McDonalds, you aren't living in poverty.
              Not everybody living in poverty is on govt. programs, in fact not everyone living in poverty is eligible.
              Maybe you ought to read what you can and cannot use your SNAP benefits for.
              What You Can Buy With Your SNAP EBT Card - USDA
              You CANNOT use SNAP benefits to buy:
              • Beer, wine, liquor, cigarettes or tobacco
              • Any nonfood items, such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, diapers, and household supplies
              • Vitamins and medicines
              • Food that will be eaten in the store
              • Hot foods
              EDIT: after a little research I did find that you CAN use your SNAP card at participating McDonalds.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807442].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                Not everybody living in poverty is on govt. programs, in fact not everyone living in poverty is eligible.
                Maybe you ought to read what you can and cannot use your SNAP benefits for.
                What You Can Buy With Your SNAP EBT Card - USDA


                EDIT: after a little research I did find that you CAN use your SNAP card at participating McDonalds.
                I'm well aware, Thom. My wife has worked with or for government assistance programs at the State, County and Municipal level for the last 15 years. It's extremely rare for someone to not be eligible for some kind of government assistance. At least, it is in Ohio.

                Here’s a quick list of fast food restaurants in states that already accept food stamps for restaurant meals (this list is from 2011. It's surely longer now - for instance, it doesn't show Ohio, which I know at least McDonalds accepts EBT/SNAP ):

                Michigan:

                Church’s Chicken
                Kentucky Fried Chicken
                McDonald’s
                Subway
                Grandma’s Famous Chicken
                Eight Mile Pancake House
                Mr. T’s BBQ
                Vito’s Pizza
                California:
                Jack in the Box
                Subway
                El Pollo Loco
                Papa Murphy’s Pizza
                Florida
                KFC
                Taco Bell
                Pizza Hut
                Papa Murphy’s Pizza
                Arizona
                Domino’s Pizza
                Golden Corral
                Southern Cuisine
                Rally’s Hamburger
                Signature

                If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807486].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author HeySal
              Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

              No, I didn't say that and you know I didn't say that. You are quite the master of hyperbole and misdirection.


              Yes, dying in the street goes beyond poverty. I'd also venture to say that saying Americans are dying in the streets is also hyperbole.

              And this is precisely what I meant. It's hard to take seriously 40,000,000 Americans living in "poverty" when American "poverty" isn't certainly a dire situation. When you can use your SNAP card at McDonalds, you aren't living in poverty.
              SNAP - has been limited recently....about at the same time unemployment benefits are about to be cut to thousands. Gonna get interesting at the least.

              Also - people dying here of poverty is NOT hyperbole. When I lived in WA in 2007 there were around 8,000 senior citizens in very dire straits. I was part of an effort to get food to them. SS just doesn't do the trick when housing goes near up to and sometimes beyond the amount they are getting in the first place. We don't hear about this problem........but they are starving or freezing inside of their homes. Every cold snap the number of homeless freezing to death goes up, too. We might not be at African levels yet ........but every year the poor class becomes larger and becomes more destitute. Americans are fuming over taxes for welfare.........yet there are not enough jobs to go around - and many out there now won't keep people fed or a roof overhead.

              Nobody in this country should be in need considering the fact that if we did nothing but cut wasteful gov spending we could give every citizen in this country a million dollars (actually more). We should cut the waste (no more multi-million dollar vacations for politicians on the taxpayer's dime would be enough to do it) - give everyone a million bucks and lets all start over from there. The people with sense will get ahead - those who are insolent and lazy will go broke and there is where we can start drawing lines about who deserves what.
              Signature

              Sal
              When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
              Beyond the Path

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807582].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

            So you are saying until you are dying, you're not hard up? Dying in the street goes beyond poverty.........and there are people doing that over here now.

            I agree that if you have a couple cars, Large screen tv's - cable, etc. you are not in poverty - you are too stupid to understand the difference between necessity and want. When people are hungry and homeless, though - I don't call it no big deal because they aren't laying in the road dying - which incidentally is going on in greater numbers every winter. The amount of people now homeless in this country is pretty shameful -- especially considering that many of them actually work for a living. Decades of stagflation is starting to take its toll.

            Maybe the one word "poverty" just isn't enough to describe the varying levels of destitution.
            You can't keep comng up with more words. People just appropriate them and CHANGE THEM! Necessity, Education, NEED, POOR, etc... all changed.

            That is NOT to say people aren't homeless, poor, etc.... It is only that most that claim those things AREN'T!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807434].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author HeySal
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              You can't keep comng up with more words. People just appropriate them and CHANGE THEM! Necessity, Education, NEED, POOR, etc... all changed.

              That is NOT to say people aren't homeless, poor, etc.... It is only that most that claim those things AREN'T!

              Steve
              Neither can you say that if you aren't dying in the streets you aren't in poverty. If you can't afford basic necessities - that's poverty. The examples of unpotable water and eating once a month are the most extreme levels of poverty. Anyone with a big screen TV that thinks they are in poverty, needs to figure out it's time to sell the damned TV.
              Signature

              Sal
              When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
              Beyond the Path

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807507].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                Neither can you say that if you aren't dying in the streets you aren't in poverty. If you can't afford basic necessities - that's poverty. The examples of unpotable water and eating once a month are the most extreme levels of poverty. Anyone with a big screen TV that thinks they are in poverty, needs to figure out it's time to sell the damned TV.
                I agree with you on all counts there. And potable water for the basics IS a necessity. If it is for something like filling a pool, it ISN'T! And eating a good meal at least 3 times a day is a necessity. FANCY things, or desserts AREN'T!

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807693].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

          Remove from those 40,000,000 whoever has a cell phone, big screen TV, families with two cars, employer-provided health insurance, any family that eats out more than once per week, etc.

          What I'm saying, Sal, is that the American standard for "poverty" is greatly different than, say, Africa. Show me a family in the US that can't afford or isn't given the means to filter clean water and I'll show you a family that isn't utilizing resources to even a minimum standard of competency.
          So is the standard of living.
          The problem with comparing one thing in one country with one thing in another country is there are other variables that come into play that aren't considered.
          Same applies in this country. A family in the south that doesn't have to heat their house in the winter and can grow a garden year round can live on less then a family in the north that has to pay almost $4 a gal for heating oil 6 months out of the year and can only have a garden for 6 months.
          My cost of living here in New York is much higher then the cost of living for my friends in Florida.
          And no them "needing" to pay for AC isn't the same as me needing to pay for heat. I've lived in Fl. without AC and survived. If I didn't have heat last week when the highs where in the teens I doubt I'd be here to type this today.
          You don't hear about many homeless people dieing from exposure in the south.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807429].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        More are learning every day. We're fast becoming a third world country. How much poverty is a good thing?

        Redefining poverty does not remove it. It only allows us to deny it exists.

        And how would you redefine it? Is being turned away from a hospital when you need treatment an indicator? Being homeless? In NYC alone there are 22,000 homeless children (stats from NYT). Working but not able to afford basic necessities? Starving to death in the streets (it's happening now, the cold snap is now claiming lives of the poor who are either homeless or can't afford to heat homes. It gets worse every winter).

        Exactly how hard up does someone have to be before we are allowed to recognize them as being in bad shape?
        POVERTY is not affording a calculator for the SAT or your other tests!
        It is not affording CABLE!
        It is not affording the INTERNET!
        It is not affording the latest designer/endorsed shoes!
        It is not having the latest style!
        It is not having a real full blown turkey dinner on thanksgiving!
        It is not having a cell phone!
        It is not having multiple cars!
        It is not having a HOUSE!
        It is not having the latest fad!

        Believe it or not, I have heard ALL of the above in this regard! The HOUSE one played a major part in the 2008 crash! If THAT is poverty, then I have been in abject poverty most of my life, and ****YOU**** have been at least most of YOURS!

        BTW Homes have to be kept around 55f, minimum!!!!!! If you fail to, things start to brake! Lines can burst, wear are tear increases, etc... If they can't afford heating, they should sell the home and move to an apartment.

        Some areas have rules against turning off the gas during a cold spell on a new delinquency.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807399].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author hardraysnight
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          POVERTY is not affording a calculator for the SAT or your other tests!
          It is not affording CABLE!
          It is not affording the INTERNET!
          It is not affording the latest designer/endorsed shoes!
          It is not having the latest style!
          It is not having a real full blown turkey dinner on thanksgiving!
          It is not having a cell phone!
          It is not having multiple cars!
          It is not having a HOUSE!
          It is not having the latest fad!

          Believe it or not, I have heard ALL of the above in this regard! The HOUSE one played a major part in the 2008 crash! If THAT is poverty, then I have been in abject poverty most of my life, and ****YOU**** have been at least most of YOURS!

          BTW Homes have to be kept around 55f, minimum!!!!!! If you fail to, things start to brake! Lines can burst, wear are tear increases, etc... If they can't afford heating, they should sell the home and move to an apartment.

          Some areas have rules against turning off the gas during a cold spell on a new delinquency.

          Steve
          so i am 60% in poverty, bah humbug
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8808239].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Devin X
          Banned
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          POVERTY is not affording a calculator for the SAT or your other tests!
          It is not affording CABLE!
          It is not affording the INTERNET!
          It is not affording the latest designer/endorsed shoes!
          It is not having the latest style!
          It is not having a real full blown turkey dinner on thanksgiving!
          It is not having a cell phone!
          It is not having multiple cars!
          It is not having a HOUSE!
          It is not having the latest fad!

          Believe it or not, I have heard ALL of the above in this regard! The HOUSE one played a major part in the 2008 crash! If THAT is poverty, then I have been in abject poverty most of my life, and ****YOU**** have been at least most of YOURS!

          BTW Homes have to be kept around 55f, minimum!!!!!! If you fail to, things start to brake! Lines can burst, wear are tear increases, etc... If they can't afford heating, they should sell the home and move to an apartment.

          Some areas have rules against turning off the gas during a cold spell on a new delinquency.

          Steve
          Poverty is an ambiguous concept and open to interpretation. Why are people neglecting the fact that compared to the top 1% of the world...and the top 1% of the 1%...everyone is impoverished? I would define poverty in today's world by looking at the gigantic gap between the rich, super rich, and everyone else. It is quite staggering....disgustingly staggering...even from an anarcho-capitalist like myself.

          Sure, bringing up the worst of the worst in other countries (if you can even call them countries) is disgusting, and the worst kind of poverty...but I think you can live with first world luxuries and still be quite impoverished...especially when compared to the tens of thousands of plutocrats who are unfathomably rich all around the world. This is also from a financial perspective...never mind examining the human and intellectual facets of wealth like education, self-actualization, health, etc.

          PS. Use the http://www.globalrichlist.com/ calculator to see just how impoverished you really are compared to the elite of the elite (in financial measures). You'll be quite surprised... even if you're super rich by most people you know (millionaire, net worth >10,000,000), you'll only rank somewhere in the 100 millionth richest of the world. ******* crazy.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810303].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
            Originally Posted by TheRealDudeman View Post

            Poverty is an ambiguous concept and open to interpretation. 1. Why are people neglecting the fact that compared to the top 1% of the world...and the top 1% of the 1%...everyone is impoverished? I would define poverty in today's world by looking at the gigantic gap between the rich, super rich, and everyone else. It is quite staggering....disgustingly staggering...even from an anarcho-capitalist like myself.

            2. Sure, bringing up the worst of the worst in other countries (if you can even call them countries) is disgusting, and the worst kind of poverty...but I think you can live with first world luxuries and still be quite impoverished...especially when compared to the tens of thousands of plutocrats who are unfathomably rich all around the world. This is also from a financial perspective...never mind examining the human and intellectual facets of wealth like education, self-actualization, health, etc.

            PS. Use the Global Rich List calculator to see just how impoverished you really are compared to the elite of the elite (in financial measures). You'll be quite surprised... even if you're super rich by most people you know (millionaire, net worth >10,000,000), you'll only rank somewhere in the 100 millionth richest of the world. ******* crazy.
            1. Because it's irrelevant to the conversation at hand. Comparing how rich one is versus the elite rich doesn't put food in anyone's mouth.

            2. If you're living with first world luxuries and you're still "impoverished," your poverty is your own fault. Throwing dollars and donuts at such a person will never solve their problem. They will always be "impoverished."
            Signature

            If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810368].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TheRealDudeman View Post

            Poverty is an ambiguous concept and open to interpretation. Why are people neglecting the fact that compared to the top 1% of the world...and the top 1% of the 1%...everyone is impoverished? I would define poverty in today's world by looking at the gigantic gap between the rich, super rich, and everyone else. It is quite staggering....disgustingly staggering...even from an anarcho-capitalist like myself.

            Sure, bringing up the worst of the worst in other countries (if you can even call them countries) is disgusting, and the worst kind of poverty...but I think you can live with first world luxuries and still be quite impoverished...especially when compared to the tens of thousands of plutocrats who are unfathomably rich all around the world. This is also from a financial perspective...never mind examining the human and intellectual facets of wealth like education, self-actualization, health, etc.

            PS. Use the Global Rich List calculator to see just how impoverished you really are compared to the elite of the elite (in financial measures). You'll be quite surprised... even if you're super rich by most people you know (millionaire, net worth >10,000,000), you'll only rank somewhere in the 100 millionth richest of the world. ******* crazy.
            What I meant is that they demand a home because "IT ISN'T FAIR!!!!!", and the home may cost say $300,000". $300,000 is enough for a nice apartment for 25 years! If you used section eight, AFTER the 25 years, you have $240,000 left over! That is enough to give you $26 dollars for a meal for every day of that 25 years. $26 can go pretty far if you cook it yourself! So they want to give the poor the ILLUSION of wealth, but look how much farther that money could have gone. And I m not even counting interest!!! At 4% interest, you would pay almost $1000 a month, for just INTEREST! With PMI, I believe it would be $1200/month! How much could a poor family do with an extra $1200 a MONTH!!?!?!?

            HEY, they LIE about how much the rich have! Look at the walton family. A lot of that money is in STOCK! And even so, there is only so much you can reasonably do with money. The only watch I have is an old casio! after about 20 years, it is still running and looks like new.

            I LOOKED at rolex. I found one I liked, but thought $14K was too much. HECK, I found out how to get it for $9K, and it is too much. And forget patek philippe and the like.

            Would I like a boat? SURE! But it is an awful lot of trouble to keep. As for jets? Nice idea, SAME PROBLEM! Warren buffet thought the same: NetJets History: The history of fractional Aircraft Ownership

            If I had an infinite amount of cash, I might get 10 cars(likely mercedes), and maybe 10 homes, and certainly travel more, but if I were a multibillionare, I think I would keep most of it in several accounts, etc....

            Alas, I figure I can only handle one home at the moment, etc... I am also down to one car that I have had for ~12 years.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810437].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Devin X
              Banned
              [DELETED]
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810547].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by TheRealDudeman View Post

                You're wrong on both accounts. What I said was perfectly relevant to the issue at hand. It also gives someone perspective. Only right wing idiots argue along the lines of, "well the poorest of the poor are still living better than the rich did 200 years ago", or some other bullshit argument like that.
                Why do you think that is BS? It is unreasonable for a person flipping hamburgers at mcdonalds to say he or she should get paid as much as a guy scrimping and saving for decades and who now owns a multi billion dollar business.

                You'd be surprised...a lot of them are extravagant and decadent like you wouldn't believe...truly.
                I said REASONABLE!!!!!! Could they buy a patek phillipe watch for over a quarter million? Artwork for millions? etc....? CERTAINLY! But what does it REALLY add!!?!?!??

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810760].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Devin X
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                  Why do you think that is BS? It is unreasonable for a person flipping hamburgers at mcdonalds to say he or she should get paid as much as a guy scrimping and saving for decades and who now owns a multi billion dollar business.
                  Did I say that? (No) But...

                  I do think it's unreasonable that when robots or machines take over someone's job, they are fired and do not receive royalties from the technology that's replaced them and their skill set.

                  I do think it's unreasonable that people who can ONLY work a menial job like flipping burgers or washing floors cannot even afford to live in a studio apartment.

                  I do think it's unreasonable that most companies only hire older people with both an education, and years of working experience.

                  I do think it's unreasonable that most companies try to pay their employees as little as legally possible.

                  I do think it's unreasonable that our economy is based on a consumer paradigm, where the more is consumed, the better. In a finite world with finite resources...this is unsustainable.

                  I do think it's unreasonable that politicians are given anything more than minimum wage, and taxed at anything less than 100%. Warriors (combat arms) should not be paid less than career politicians.

                  I do think it's unreasonable that our currencies are derived from a private entity (FED/IMF), and not from individual governments, as is their right.

                  I do think it's unreasonable that pharmaceutical companies are for profit, rather than non-profit orgs.

                  I do think it's unreasonable that the education system is full of administrators who have never taught a class in their life, yet dictate how teachers should go about teaching their students. Not to mention the fact that programs like "no child left behind" have actually lowered the educational standards, and left behind all the gifted (not retarded) students who should go on to work in STEM fields.

                  I do think it's unreasonable that weapons manufacturers have no national identity, and will sell their products to any government willing to pay them. (whores)

                  I do think it's unreasonable that colleges have turned into piggy banks for administrators...rather than centers for education and scientific experimentation.

                  I do think it's unreasonable that the government acts in the interest of big business, as well as the politicians who are currently "serving" in office.

                  I can go on, I'm sure. We live in a land of confusion, where up is down and left is right. Do I have all the answers? No. But I know bullshit when I see it.

                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                  I said REASONABLE!!!!!! Could they buy a patek phillipe watch for over a quarter million? Artwork for millions? etc....? CERTAINLY! But what does it REALLY add!!?!?!??
                  I misinterpreted this. I thought you were saying that there was only so much someone could spend...as if the super super rich cannot possibly spend 3000X more than the average joe can...and that's why my response was, "you'd be surprised". I see now what you were referring to instead...and no, I'm not advocating that prices be jacked up for items just because they could spend it.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810804].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by TheRealDudeman View Post

                    Did I say that? (No) But...

                    I do think it's unreasonable that when robots or machines take over someone's job, they are fired and do not receive royalties from the technology that's replaced them and their skill set.
                    If THEY got royalties, then why not everyone else on the planet? If you can't lay claim to the process, royalties are unreasonable.

                    I do think it's unreasonable that people who can ONLY work a menial job like flipping burgers or washing floors cannot even afford to live in a studio apartment.
                    WOW, on that basis, the food would cost a fortune. Who would buy it?

                    I do think it's unreasonable that most companies only hire older people with both an education, and years of working experience.
                    It IS what you asked for! People said it would happen from the getgo! As work gets harder to get, and the minimum wage goes up, more older people will apply, and business owners prefer a track record.

                    I do think it's unreasonable that most companies try to pay their employees as little as legally possible.
                    That way they get more workers.

                    I do think it's unreasonable that our economy is based on a consumer paradigm, where the more is consumed, the better. In a finite world with finite resources...this is unsustainable.
                    It is somewhat unsustainable MAINLY because productivity is dropping, and waste is going up.

                    I HATE the idea of media and sales driving this, but do YOU have a way to change it?

                    I do think it's unreasonable that politicians are given anything more than minimum wage, and taxed at anything less than 100%. Warriors (combat arms) should not be paid less than career politicians.
                    WOW, we agree pretty much THERE also!

                    I do think it's unreasonable that our currencies are derived from a private entity (FED/IMF), and not from individual governments, as is their right.
                    YEAH, I hate that ALSO!

                    I do think it's unreasonable that pharmaceutical companies are for profit, rather than non-profit orgs.
                    The term non profit is a misnomer. MOST, if not all, hospitals are non profit, but they STILL get a LARGE margin!

                    I do think it's unreasonable that the education system is full of administrators who have never taught a class in their life, yet dictate how teachers should go about teaching their students. Not to mention the fact that programs like "no child left behind" have actually lowered the educational standards, and left behind all the gifted (not retarded) students who should go on to work in STEM fields.
                    WOW, I agree HERE also!

                    I do think it's unreasonable that weapons manufacturers have no national identity, and will sell their products to any government willing to pay them. (whores)

                    I do think it's unreasonable that colleges have turned into piggy banks for administrators...rather than centers for education and scientific experimentation.

                    I do think it's unreasonable that the government acts in the interest of big business, as well as the politicians who are currently "serving" in office.

                    I can go on, I'm sure. We live in a land of confusion, where up is down and left is right. Do I have all the answers? No. But I know bullshit when I see it.
                    I don't agree with some of what you said, but there is a surprising chunk I DO agree with.

                    I misinterpreted this. I thought you were saying that there was only so much someone could spend...as if the super super rich cannot possibly spend 3000X more than the average joe can...and that's why my response was, "you'd be surprised". I see now what you were referring to instead...and no, I'm not advocating that prices be jacked up for items just because they could spend it.
                    NO. I never understood the idea of "precious stones", designer whatever, etc... Some of the most expensive dresses look HORRIBLE, and I bet they are uncomfortable ALSO. They also aren't very secure. So women clearly wear them primarily for a STATUS symbol!

                    I love lucy has an episode where the guys tricked them into wearing garbage as "fashion"!

                    LUCYlibrary: Lucy Ricardo Doll: "Lucy Gets a Paris Gown" (Mattel)

                    Maybe I am just weird but, for all my failings, I have happy avoided several vices such as this.

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810905].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Devin X
                      Banned
                      Moderated: Keep the partisan comments and profanity out of your posts, please. Any more of it and this thread will be locked.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810954].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author fastreplies
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        We're fast becoming a third world country.
        You are third world country, it's just no one told you that to your faces... not yet.



        fastreplies
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807647].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
      Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

      We could start by redefining "poverty." I highly doubt there are 40,000,000 Americans who truly know what real poverty is.
      Again, I find myself thinking along the same line. What we think of as "Poverty', is not the same as it was 100 years ago, or in some other countries.

      Are you without access to clean water? Have you gone several days without eating? Some people define that as poverty.

      Making $25,000 a year may put you in the poverty category. But you still are warm at night, and eat every day. You still have a car, a TV, cable, and go out with friends. Your income is limited, but people from poorer countries don't see it that way.

      We define poverty differently than the rest of the world, I think.

      Added later; Oh, my God! I had to take a phone call and when I came back, there was this entire discussion going on. Anyway, I guess I have nothing more to add.

      There is real poverty. I've seen where dirt poor people live. And they are convinced there is no way out. Some even work hard jobs. But what we call "Poverty" here, includes people that are just at the low end of making a good income.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8808062].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    Originally Posted by beasty513 View Post

    What should be done?


    What are your thoughts and why you feel this way?
    I think what should be done and what is actually happening are entirely different things. The exponentially increasing disparity between rich and poor in the US are symptoms of a widespread economic ailment. It is this ailment that compels China to dump the US dollar big-time for natural resource investments and other currencies.
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807289].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Instead of paying $700K+ on garbage website that people are FORCED to use, maybe they should have a nice budgeting app. You could type your income in, where you live, ethnicity, and a few fixed costs, and it could setup a budget for you!

    It could list your current costs, show meals you likely like, and plan costs for that, etc....

    IF you come in too low, it could out subsidy. If you are living in a place that is too expensive, it could plan out a better place and maybe suggest a section 8, if available.

    THAT would help the poor SO much, make things easier for all, and probably SAVE MONEY!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807420].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Riggs
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Instead of paying $700K+ on garbage website that people are FORCED to use, maybe they should have a nice budgeting app. You could type your income in, where you live, ethnicity, and a few fixed costs, and it could setup a budget for you!

      It could list your current costs, show meals you likely like, and plan costs for that, etc....

      IF you come in too low, it could out subsidy. If you are living in a place that is too expensive, it could plan out a better place and maybe suggest a section 8, if available.

      THAT would help the poor SO much, make things easier for all, and probably SAVE MONEY!

      Steve
      Sounds like an idea worth monetizing. How much should we charge for this app?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807600].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by Riggs View Post

        Sounds like an idea worth monetizing. How much should we charge for this app?
        As I was writing that post, I was even toying with the idea of doing it myself for free. Of course MINE wouldn't CHECK income, or suggest gobernment subsidies(as the government is even bad with THAT).

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807701].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author beasty513
    I agree that the "American" standard of poverty

    can't compare really to the rest of the world making

    that relative.


    Also many people that feel "poor" happens to be working.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807428].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sarevok
    There's no doubt Americans are in poverty. People who say otherwise are falling victim to the systematic division of America and are the unwilling pawn in the Media's game when they signify that "Unemployment is on the decline", "We're in recovery", and "Everything is fine nothing to see here".

    Me? I've seen poverty in America. I grew up in Boston, we're one of the richest cities on the planet and have an unfathomable quantity of poor people that fall through the cracks and DO NOT qualify for any "social services".

    I always get a kick out of "Ebeneezer Scrooge" types who say that there are no poor people in USA.

    There are over 100,000,000 unemployed Americans, massive financial bubbles (education, FED, housing), and people are truly broke as hell.

    Things will get worse when students default on their student loans. Imagine paying 6% interest on 100k debt before you even have a house? And you're forced to work at McDonalds earning $7 an hour, while a majority of the country yells at you to get another job, and refuses to pay you a fair wage?

    Things are worse than everyone believes, and it's my hypothesis that things will steadily decline.

    Just my $.02

    PS: Merry Xmas.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807629].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Sarevok View Post

      There's no doubt Americans are in poverty. People who say otherwise are falling victim to the systematic division of America and are the unwilling pawn in the Media's game when they signify that "Unemployment is on the decline", "We're in recovery", and "Everything is fine nothing to see here".

      Me? I've seen poverty in America. I grew up in Boston, we're one of the richest cities on the planet and have an unfathomable quantity of poor people that fall through the cracks and DO NOT qualify for any "social services".

      I always get a kick out of "Ebeneezer Scrooge" types who say that there are no poor people in USA.

      There are over 100,000,000 unemployed Americans, massive financial bubbles (education, FED, housing), and people are truly broke as hell.

      Things will get worse when students default on their student loans. Imagine paying 6% interest on 100k debt before you even have a house? And you're forced to work at McDonalds earning $7 an hour, while a majority of the country yells at you to get another job, and refuses to pay you a fair wage?

      Things are worse than everyone believes, and it's my hypothesis that things will steadily decline.

      Just my $.02

      PS: Merry Xmas.

      Well, for those with the huge loans, some are even for "education" on things nobody needs/wants. Papers have started creating lists of worthless diplomas! And it IS ironic how this works! People complain that they want more money, costs go up, people complain they can't pay, loans are provided and it goes back to people saying they aren't paid enough. MEANWHILE, something happens to try to artificially lower interest rates or even loans, and that means higher taxes and less viability which means more inflation and possibly causes things to crash, like in 2008!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807715].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    What you are allowed to use government assistance for these days is reprehensible.
    A week or so ago I was at the groverry store and the lady in front of me was buying two grocery carts full of soda. Apparently the store was having some sort of sale on one brand but the lady had mixed brands and was unhappy she wasn't getting the discount she felt she deserved. After having the manager come and get it straightened out, the lady then proceeded to pay with food stamps.

    It was all I could do to keep quiet.
    If I had been by myself I probably wouldn't have,but my family already com,plains that I have no filters when dealing with things like this.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807749].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      What you are allowed to use government assistance for these days is reprehensible.
      A week or so ago I was at the groverry store and the lady in front of me was buying two grocery carts full of soda. Apparently the store was having some sort of sale on one brand but the lady had mixed brands and was unhappy she wasn't getting the discount she felt she deserved. After having the manager come and get it straightened out, the lady then proceeded to pay with food stamps.

      It was all I could do to keep quiet.
      If I had been by myself I probably wouldn't have,but my family already com,plains that I have no filters when dealing with things like this.
      YEAH, I am sadly addicted to the stuff, and often lucky if I have ANY choice(Since I work in so many areas, etc...), but if I were poor, I would have more control and may even opt for oranges and water. Soda isn't good for ANYONE!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807871].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thunderbird
    America will rise again. Its greatness began after kicking the looting parasitical aristocrats to the curb; it is time to do so again. It is easier for a boat to reach new destinations without an anchor dragging it down and easier for the eagle to fly without shackles.
    Signature

    Project HERE.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8807888].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
    "A waist is a terrible thing to mind." - Terry Forster
    Signature
    Serious about Print on Demand? Discover how YOU can join my FREE exclusive secret alliance
    Plus how to get my Print on Demand Treasure Maps for FREE
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8808194].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author beasty513
    Hello everyone.


    I'm glad to have read your responses

    and hope that we continue the dialogue.


    There are no easy answers.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8808218].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author beasty513
    I concur that Government trying to "help" with healthcare isn't good at all.


    Whenever Government try's to "help" with something

    that usually means higher prices and lower quality.


    We'll see what happens in regard to the healthcare.

    ===========================================
    For the poverty problem I think there will be more

    people in the food lines in the coming years.


    Why?


    Simple because most are not prepared for a rapidly changing economy.


    We have a head start.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8808336].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by beasty513 View Post

      I concur that Government trying to "help" with healthcare isn't good at all.


      Whenever Government try's to "help" with something

      that usually means higher prices and lower quality.


      We'll see what happens in regard to the healthcare.

      ===========================================
      For the poverty problem I think there will be more

      people in the food lines in the coming years.


      Why?


      Simple because most are not prepared for a rapidly changing economy.


      We have a head start.
      Since food stamp funding was just cut significantly and unemployment benefits are getting cut as of January...........and there still isn't much around but part time jobs at min wage levels, you bet there's some decline ahead - very shortly.

      We have a head start only as long as the electric grid holds. There's a lot of people making money online now that will be totally disoriented if the web melts down for any reason.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8808364].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author beasty513
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        Since food stamp funding was just cut significantly and unemployment benefits are getting cut as of January...........and there still isn't much around but part time jobs at min wage levels, you bet there's some decline ahead - very shortly.

        We have a head start only as long as the electric grid holds. There's a lot of people making money online now that will be totally disoriented if the web melts down for any reason.
        Yes.


        I can see the decline because this economy is

        very dependent on consumption.


        People will be less willing to splurge on: homes, cars, appliances, etc.


        As for the head start what I meant was those

        involved with online earning can adapt quickly.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8808402].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        Since food stamp funding was just cut significantly and unemployment benefits are getting cut as of January...........and there still isn't much around but part time jobs at min wage levels, you bet there's some decline ahead - very shortly.

        We have a head start only as long as the electric grid holds. There's a lot of people making money online now that will be totally disoriented if the web melts down for any reason.
        Don't forget! The REAL income from minimum wage, and near minimum wage, jobs has been cut about 28%!!!!!!

        $8/hour full time EARLIER= 16640/year
        $8/hour full time NOW=12064/year

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8809232].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Kay King
          Food stamps are being cut from 1.50 to 1.40 per person per meal. It's a big savings in the budget because almost half the country is on the SNAP program now. Food stamps were designed to supplement a family's food budget - not to pay for all of their food costs.

          The unemployment benefits have been extended time and time again and it's normal for them to be cut back a bit when unemployment are headed down.

          Standard unemployment limit in the past was 26 weeks - and in emergency times it's extended to 40 or even 52 weeks....since 2009 many have been on unemployment payments for up to 99 weeks. We need to be more honest about the benefits instead of simply parroting "people are going to lose benefits". Unemployment is an "emergency benefit", not a permanent paycheck.

          If it's true the economy is improving rapidly - if it's true unemployment percentage has dropped to 7% - if it's true we're created all the jobs lost in the recession (one claim I've seen several times recently)...then it's time to cut back on the emergency benefits, the extended benefits, the increased benefits...

          The people claiming economic recovery are the same people complaining about cutting back on benefits. If the economy is so great now - why do you need extended benefits?

          I agree it's a bad time to be cutting benefits....but we may have to do that to get a true picture of where the economy is. We can't keep propping up the stock market and almost half of the population forever.
          Signature
          Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

          Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8809464].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
            [DELETED]
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8809494].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

            if it's true unemployment percentage has dropped to 7%
            It's possibly true at the SAME time that it is definitely FALSE! HOW? WELL, new laws basically DEMAND that a lot of people be employed for LESS time. So they end up UNDERemployed. You could say, that they almost might as well be UN employed. MEANWHILE, OTHERS must come in and share the jobs to make up the productivity deficit.

            if it's true we're created all the jobs lost in the recession (one claim I've seen several times recently)...
            Some people figure that a similar number means a similar economy, but that is FAR from true. I am seeing more and more of MY industry being diverted to NON americans!

            The people claiming economic recovery are the same people complaining about cutting back on benefits. If the economy is so great now - why do you need extended benefits?
            Interesting, HUH!?!?!?

            I agree it's a bad time to be cutting benefits....but we may have to do that to get a true picture of where the economy is. We can't keep propping up the stock market and almost half of the population forever.
            EXACTLY! As for the stock market, I think most reasonable people would say they want the government to have LESS of a support position. CURB? YES! REGULATE? YES! But use interest rates to attack it or buysell? NOPE!!!!!! Maybe if they did all that, the markets would run smoother, etc....

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8809572].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by beasty513 View Post

      I concur that Government trying to "help" with healthcare isn't good at all.


      Whenever Government try's to "help" with something

      that usually means higher prices and lower quality.


      We'll see what happens in regard to the healthcare.

      ===========================================
      For the poverty problem I think there will be more

      people in the food lines in the coming years.


      Why?


      Simple because most are not prepared for a rapidly changing economy.


      We have a head start.
      I actually looked at that site, and it does NOT look good. I would have to pay FAR more and get insurance that, in my case, would be WORTHLESS!!!!!! I currently pay less and have insurance that would allow me to get my needed yearly tests(that cost as much as OVER $14,000 a YEAR, YEAH, you read right, FOURTEEN THOUSAND USD!!!!)! for a veritable song. Of course, the tests only allow me to decide when to take my last chance. The tests take the better part of a day, and the operation(if I should decide to get it), would likely take over 10 hours, 2 weeks of recoup time, and gve me maybe another 5 years. Needless to say, don't generally get the tests.

      My insurance is up later his year. Will they renew? What if they DON'T? NOBODY has been able to answer these 2 little questions! The HCG insurance is truly WORTHLESS to me.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8809216].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Joe Mobley
    Originally Posted by beasty513 View Post

    What should be done?
    Nothing!!! by ANY government agency!

    Originally Posted by beasty513 View Post

    What are your thoughts
    "How's that American education system working out?"

    Originally Posted by beasty513 View Post

    and why you feel this way?
    Previous experience.

    Joe Mobley
    Signature

    .

    Follow Me on Twitter: @daVinciJoe
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8809723].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by Joe Mobley View Post

      Nothing!!! by ANY government agency!

      Joe Mobley
      Joe I'm sure you've noticed this but I'll say it anyways.
      Have you noticed how whenever the govt. declares a war on something we always end up with more of what they declare war on?
      War on Drugs.
      War on Terror.
      War on poverty.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8809759].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author socialentry
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        Joe I'm sure you've noticed this but I'll say it anyways.
        Have you noticed how whenever the govt. declares a war on something we always end up with more of what they declare war on?
        War on Drugs.
        War on Terror.
        War on poverty.
        War on Nazism.
        War on Communism
        War on Slavery
        War on Malaria
        War on Tubercolosis

        Mao did a war on STDs and he won.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8809794].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by socialentry View Post

          War on Nazism.
          War on Communism
          War on Slavery
          War on Malaria
          War on Tubercolosis
          Except the govt. didn't declare a war on any of them. They declared war on specific countries or states. Giving us the Civil war, WW2, and the Korean war.
          Not to mention they all still exist.
          As far as Malaria and tuberculosis go Doctors or scientists discovered cures and preventions for them. The govt. didn't declare war on them.
          What I mentioned where declared "wars" by the federal govt.
          Since Nixon declared the war on drugs we have spent billions and still have a huge drug problem and more types of drugs that didn't exist when the "war" started.
          The war on terror (started by Bush) has given us more terrorist now in country's that didn't have a terrorist problem before like Iraq.
          The war on poverty, well we didn't have 40,000,000+ in poverty when it was started by Johnson.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8809895].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by socialentry View Post

          War on Nazism.
          War on Communism
          War on Slavery
          War on Malaria
          War on Tubercolosis

          Mao did a war on STDs and he won.
          WHAT'S your point?

          NAZISM is still around. Most countries have rules to try to limit it, but it is still around in France, Germany, the US, etc.... To stop Nazi Germany, it would be more proper to say that the ALLIES did it. Even a lot of allies would have been upset if the US used atom bombs on Germany. It would just be too close to many allies.
          Communism is still around!
          SLAVERY is still around! In the US, most was gotten rid of by a government that let the citizens handle it, and now they(most that fought with the north, and those that led that government) want less government.
          MALARIA is still around. The US has ways to prevent and mitigate it that were developed by private enterprise!
          Tuberculosis is still around, and was done by private enterprise.

          Even POLIO! It was perhaps the best success ever considering the problem and success, Apparently FDR merely founded it, and they did have a lot of people try to get private funds. It IS something. Back then, they had domestic people sacrifice and volunteer, willingly, for such pursuits.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810069].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
    Well....if the big banks can grant themselves (now remember, these banks had CEO's as chairmen in the Federal Reserve...big conflict of interest) an 800 billion bailout...twice

    Then I propose we give the 315 million American people a bailout that would give every family enough to zero out their personal debts, pay their bills for the next 50 years and then dump a bunch into the economy, buying stuff.

    So Letsee...800 billion divided by 315 million gives each person 2.539 billion dollars.

    ...but since that's already been done....twice...and the money only went to a handful of people.

    Lets start off with something more reasonable...say 2 million each.

    We could insure ourselves for the next ten years, remove some debt, buy some things...balance out our lives a bit.

    ...That's just a mere 630 million....only about as much as the Obama care website supposedly cost.


    ...ok so, throwing out a bunch of numbers in fun aside....why is this basic concept not being seriously discussed.

    You look at how much money has already been wasted, and continues to be spent by government...and to what ends?

    A citizen bailout ( or debt nullification) would be a drop in the bucket comparatively.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8809773].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author socialentry
      Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

      Well....if the big banks can grant themselves (now remember, these banks had CEO's as chairmen in the Federal Reserve...big conflict of interest) an 800 billion bailout...twice

      Then I propose we give the 315 million American people a bailout that would give every family enough to zero out their personal debts, pay their bills for the next 50 years and then dump a bunch into the economy, buying stuff.

      So Letsee...800 billion divided by 315 million gives each person 2.539 billion dollars.

      ...but since that's already been done....twice...and the money only went to a handful of people.

      Lets start off with something more reasonable...say 2 million each.

      We could insure ourselves for the next ten years, remove some debt, buy some things...balance out our lives a bit.

      ...That's just a mere 630 million....only about as much as the Obama care website supposedly cost.


      ...ok so, throwing out a bunch of numbers in fun aside....why is this basic concept not being seriously discussed.

      You look at how much money has already been wasted, and continues to be spent by government...and to what ends?

      A citizen bailout ( or debt nullification) would be a drop in the bucket comparatively.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8809911].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Kay King
        Instead of going for your share of the pie, much better to look at ways to decrease the costs for everyone.

        Tort reform to stop the massive lawsuits that look to make money rather than to provide relief for damage caused and drive up health care and drug costs for everyone.

        Term limits for the entire Congressional body. We're told that won't work because "new people don't understand how it works". In truth, new people wouldn't be using those same old tricks and cheats to make it work. They wouldn't be in office long enough for the big power plays that run our govt today.

        I'd limit the Senators to 12 years and house members to 8 years. Make serving in Congress a true "public service" rather than a career cash cow. Impose a waiting period for all elected officials so they can't go straight from serving in Congress to lobbying Congress.

        My personal favorite: Require any bill passed to include a "cliff notes" version that highlights any cost or requirements of the bill in clear language people can understand.
        Signature
        Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

        Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8809961].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author beasty513
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

          Instead of going for your share of the pie, much better to look at ways to decrease the costs for everyone.

          Tort reform to stop the massive lawsuits that look to make money rather than to provide relief for damage caused and drive up health care and drug costs for everyone.

          Term limits for the entire Congressional body. We're told that won't work because "new people don't understand how it works". In truth, new people wouldn't be using those same old tricks and cheats to make it work. They wouldn't be in office long enough for the big power plays that run our govt today.

          I'd limit the Senators to 12 years and house members to 8 years. Make serving in Congress a true "public service" rather than a career cash cow. Impose a waiting period for all elected officials so they can't go straight from serving in Congress to lobbying Congress.

          My personal favorite: Require any bill passed to include a "cliff notes" version that highlights any cost or requirements of the bill in clear language people can understand.

          All nice suggestions.


          This would help clean up the waste and fraud

          that is going on right now at the nation's capital.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810024].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by Kay King View Post


          Tort reform to stop the massive lawsuits that look to make money rather than to provide relief for damage caused and drive up health care and drug costs for everyone.
          Actually, there exists in our court systems a way to put those suits to bed fast - but people don't know or don't understand those either. First is demand the the "suing" party proves damages or loss. Most of em can't because any "loss" is on paper" only and doesn't exist in the real world.

          Second is Jury Nullification -- instead of the jury voting the defendant guilty or not guilty, they throw out the "broken law" as unconstitutional or just plain unethical or wrong. That one holds precedence, too - so it sticks to future cases. If people had started using jury nullification in pot arrests and arraignments from the get go, the war on drugs wouldn't have gotten very far out of the starting gate.
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810546].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

      Do you really want to pay a hundred dollars for a loaf of bread?
      I think he was saying INSTEAD OF! If right, they spent the money ALREADY! The $630M was the ORIGINAL payment! The one that got it approximately 9% done (30% of 30%). To get it 28% done(the last estimate of 90% of 30%), it cost much more. Last I heard, they CLAIMED to have it about 30% done, and said the other 70% wasn't even started! GRANTED, that was like 20 days ago, but as of last friday(12/20/2013), that 70% was near WORTHLESS!

      OH, but IT(the remaining 70%) isn't important! It isn't used to sign you up to select, or interface with customers. All IT does it does is enroll people, determine the actual payments, make the payments, send out verification, and maybe a few other things.

      So it is anyone's guess what the full cost will be. I bet they don't even have a proper contract.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810089].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Math isn't your strong point I can see. If you gave just 315 people $2 million each that would equal $630 million. $800 billion divided by 315 million equals $2,539. :/

      Originally Posted by Doran Peck View Post

      So Letsee...800 billion divided by 315 million gives each person 2.539 billion dollars.

      ...but since that's already been done....twice...and the money only went to a handful of people.

      Lets start off with something more reasonable...say 2 million each.

      We could insure ourselves for the next ten years, remove some debt, buy some things...balance out our lives a bit.

      ...That's just a mere 630 million....only about as much as the Obama care website supposedly cost.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810149].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Young Financier
      Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

      Do you really want to pay a hundred dollars for a loaf of bread?
      Exactly. I was wondering if he knew how much his proposed solution would deteriorate spending power.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8814734].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Doran Peck
    Hehe Tim....yes...decimal points....I was absent that day.

    I also have trouble with shapes.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810298].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LarryC
    We live in a strange world, one in which simple "truths" that might seem obvious may not be so true after all. For example, the assumption that people who have cell phones and cable can't really be poor might sound reasonable, and I once believed it myself. But the fact is, modern culture makes electronic devices and services ever cheaper and more accessible, while necessities such as food and shelter keep rising in cost.

    Consider the fact that cell phones are now widely available in some of the poorest countries in Africa. Apparently, they are doing some good. But that doesn't mean the people there aren't still poor. I'm not sure what my point is, except that there are many ways to define poverty and that the world contains many strange paradoxes. So, all things considered, I suspect many Americans with cell phones, cable and possibly even cars, laptops and iPads really are quite poor.

    Kenyans Prioritizing Mobile Phone Over Food, Transport
    Signature
    Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8810840].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author H.Miller
    I think people have to start taking more responsibility for themselves and stop waiting for someone or something to save them.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8814082].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author beasty513
      Originally Posted by H.Miller View Post

      I think people have to start taking more responsibility for themselves and stop waiting for someone or something to save them.
      This is the quote of the year.


      I think a lot of people like to pass the buck

      instead of taking responsibility themselves.


      Lets start 2014 with this in mind.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8814823].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author beasty513
    First off Happy New Year to everyone.

    Will the "poverty" in U.S. go up?

    Could people be able to support themselves?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8831566].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Young Financier
    Only liberal Americans would think that a guy flipping burgers deserves to get paid the same amount as the guy who's responsible for the existence of the company. People who work with their mind will always be paid more than people who work with their body. It's supply and demand. You can hire anybody to do the physical labor, but you can't hire just any ole Joe to do the mental work, which by the way is the hardest type of work there is.

    I honestly believe that in America at least, so-called poverty is punishment for not taking the time to educate yourself on how the game is played. You don't even have to attend college to understand the game to which I'm referring. The American system is setup to reward those who can figure out this game and take advantage of it at the right time. It's funny how a lot of foreigners come to America and do well for themselves because they've figured out the game, but most Americans who have been here their whole lives never figure it out.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8831935].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Young Financier View Post

      Only liberal Americans would think that a guy flipping burgers deserves to get paid the same amount as the guy who's responsible for the existence of the company. People who work with their mind will always be paid more than people who work with their body. It's supply and demand. You can hire anybody to do the physical labor, but you can't hire just any ole Joe to do the mental work, which by the way is the hardest type of work there is.

      I honestly believe that in America at least, so-called poverty is punishment for not taking the time to educate yourself on how the game is played. You don't even have to attend college to understand the game to which I'm referring. The American system is setup to reward those who can figure out this game and take advantage of it at the right time. It's funny how a lot of foreigners come to America and do well for themselves because they've figured out the game, but most Americans who have been here their whole lives never figure it out.

      There are apparently "CHURCHES" that actually teach AGAINST the game. THEY would never reward people for treating THEM that way, but THEY want to be rewarded for it. That means the giver MUST HAVE a different system than THEY do! Think about it! THEIR way, if all were equal, would require half the nation to be SUCKERS!

      The jobs that have the most customers have to average to the lowest cost per piece. It is just basic economics. if that doesn't happen, the price of everything will go up.

      The jobs that take the least skill are the ones that are generally paid the least. As you said, anyone can fill them. AGAIN, higher supply, they have paid less, they risk less, why SHOULDN'T they be paid less?

      That said, SOMETIMES there are jobs where they have enough customers, buying a product that is uncommon enough, to support a larger wage and maybe they will pay a higher wage for less skilled workers to keep them longer. The car industry is obviously such a job. Lower level schools are another, etc... It STILL causes inflation, but at least to a lower degree.

      And before you think raising the wage is OK, even if there is inflation, ALL it does is affect retirees and formulas and waste. It does NOT raise the real wage of the majority of employees, because THEIR COSTS go up and eat away the value of what they got. and then they say "Ooops, we should have asked for MORE!"! THAT is why it keeps going up! They talk about "COLA" like it is some natural fact of life. NOPE! It is a way to make it APPEAR like whatever agency is doing something about it. Retirees that have saved up THEIR WHOLE LIVES are among the biggest losers but the average citizen is not a winner anyway. The WINNER is the government! They get lower loans, and more chances to LOOK good. THEY don't care about inflation because a HUGE COLA is built into their salary and pension! and they get advanced notice and can decide on taxes.

      Have you noticed that they ue the term "unintended circumstances" more now? They are failing BIG TIME in tracking their OWN legislation!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8832003].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Young Financier
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        There are apparently "CHURCHES" that actually teach AGAINST the game. THEY would never reward people for treating THEM that way, but THEY want to be rewarded for it. That means the giver MUST HAVE a different system than THEY do! Think about it! THEIR way, if all were equal, would require half the nation to be SUCKERS!

        The jobs that have the most customers have to average to the lowest cost per piece. It is just basic economics. if that doesn't happen, the price of everything will go up.

        The jobs that take the least skill are the ones that are generally paid the least. As you said, anyone can fill them. AGAIN, higher supply, they have paid less, they risk less, why SHOULDN'T they be paid less?

        That said, SOMETIMES there are jobs where they have enough customers, buying a product that is uncommon enough, to support a larger wage and maybe they will pay a higher wage for less skilled workers to keep them longer. The car industry is obviously such a job. Lower level schools are another, etc... It STILL causes inflation, but at least to a lower degree.

        And before you think raising the wage is OK, even if there is inflation, ALL it does is affect retirees and formulas and waste. It does NOT raise the real wage of the majority of employees, because THEIR COSTS go up and eat away the value of what they got. and then they say "Ooops, we should have asked for MORE!"! THAT is why it keeps going up! They talk about "COLA" like it is some natural fact of life. NOPE! It is a way to make it APPEAR like whatever agency is doing something about it. Retirees that have saved up THEIR WHOLE LIVES are among the biggest losers but the average citizen is not a winner anyway. The WINNER is the government! They get lower loans, and more chances to LOOK good. THEY don't care about inflation because a HUGE COLA is built into their salary and pension! and they get advanced notice and can decide on taxes.

        Have you noticed that they ue the term "unintended circumstances" more now? They are failing BIG TIME in tracking their OWN legislation!

        Steve
        That's the funny thing about the proposed wage increases. Those who propose such only think about nominal dollars. Even if they were to raise the minimum wage, the slight salary increase would have the same spending power as their old wage. Besides, most people and their tendency to mismanage money would actually make them poorer on a higher salary than they would be on a lower salary. If you were to take someone who makes $35k a year, give them a $5k a year raise....I guarantee you they'll find a way to take on more debt and buy more things with their increased income, which would put them right back at jump street. However, I do find it funny that people never address the masses' ability to mismanage money. I've always said that even if you confiscated the wealth of every billionaire and spread it amongst the people evenly, the money would end up right back where it is now.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8832179].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by Young Financier View Post

          That's the funny thing about the proposed wage increases. Those who propose such only think about nominal dollars. Even if they were to raise the minimum wage, the slight salary increase would have the same spending power as their old wage. Besides, most people and their tendency to mismanage money would actually make them poorer on a higher salary than they would be on a lower salary. If you were to take someone who makes $35k a year, give them a $5k a year raise....I guarantee you they'll find a way to take on more debt and buy more things with their increased income, which would put them right back at jump street. However, I do find it funny that people never address the masses' ability to mismanage money. I've always said that even if you confiscated the wealth of every billionaire and spread it amongst the people evenly, the money would end up right back where it is now.
          The more you make, the more you owe.
          Back when I was in school in the 50's and 60's they taught you things like creating a budget, how to write a check, and how to reconcile your checking account. We also learned about different types of interest banks used and other things to help you manage your money. The Boy Scouts also had a budgeting merit badge.
          Part of our problems today are the result of Nixon totally taking us off the gold standard. When the value of our currency is based on "faith and credit" it looses value. When the govt. can simply print more money to meet demand, it looses value.
          After Nixon's move we went from a cash based society to a credit based society.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8832353].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            After Nixon's move we went from a cash based society to a credit based society.
            And the American people pretty much followed suit. Including me. There's that old saying that people tend to live just beyond their means. There is a certain mentality needed to be able to budget and spend wisely. But much of that is missing thanks to not teaching it to kids when they're still in school. They didn't in the 70's when I went to school. I learned the hard way.

            I can finally say that I am pretty much "debt free" for the first time in over 20 years. By debt, I mean revolving credit mostly. I still have car payments and a mortgage. But I also had over 30,000 in revolving debt. Now it's gone.

            It's gone because I (and my wife) changed our thought process when it comes to money and subsequently changed our spending habits. I also found additional ways to make money. I took initiative and I learned and worked hard. And it's paying in spades now.

            I know there are a lot of people out there who can't, don't have the ability, etc. But I believe many simply use excuses for their hard life and sit with their hands out. I was NOT born with a silver spoon - FAR from it. Dirt poor family, I quit high school in the 10th grade. I'm far from brilliant. I just wanted something better and I wanted it MORE than wanting to remain in my old ways and lifestyle.

            You have choices in life. Try or cry. Pick yourself up, or pull the covers over your head. That might be an over simplification, but it IS a start. Nothing worthwhile is easy - it's just that such a large portion of our population thinks they deserve things to be easy - or handed to them.

            Happy New Year
            Signature

            Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8832533].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Young Financier
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            The more you make, the more you owe.
            Back when I was in school in the 50's and 60's they taught you things like creating a budget, how to write a check, and how to reconcile your checking account. We also learned about different types of interest banks used and other things to help you manage your money. The Boy Scouts also had a budgeting merit badge.
            Part of our problems today are the result of Nixon totally taking us off the gold standard. When the value of our currency is based on "faith and credit" it looses value. When the govt. can simply print more money to meet demand, it looses value.
            After Nixon's move we went from a cash based society to a credit based society.
            Actually, Nixon took us off of the gold-exchange standard. We've been off the gold standard since 1933. Coming off of the gold standard was one of the major contributors to the ending of the Great Depression, as we then went on to experience great growth. Gold as money is outdated. Money supply can still grow out of control on a gold standard through the bank's fractional reserve lending system. Gold is not the solution to our monetary problems. In fact, gold has a horrible track record of stability...causing deflationary depressions.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8834660].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by Young Financier View Post

              Actually, Nixon took us off of the gold-exchange standard. We've been off the gold standard since 1933. Coming off of the gold standard was one of the major contributors to the ending of the Great Depression, as we then went on to experience great growth. Gold as money is outdated. Money supply can still grow out of control on a gold standard through the bank's fractional reserve lending system. Gold is not the solution to our monetary problems. In fact, gold has a horrible track record of stability...causing deflationary depressions.
              In OTHER words, you are saying that a gold standard won't help if we violate it!
              A gold standard WON'T help if we don't have a gold standard.

              That sounds kind of crazy. GOLD back then was worth like $25! SO, if we were on the gold standard, we would have a dollar that is worth about 4900% of what it is now! That is about on par with what it was then. Looks like it works to ME! IMAGINE! Someone that has $4900 NOW would only need about $1. And HOW do you track gold?

              Gold has 4 main things in its favor that fiat currency will NEVER have!
              1. You can't make more.
              2. It won't go away.
              3. It looks nice and can be used EVERYWHERE!
              4. It has intrinsic value.

              What is the MAIN problem with currency? It is ARTWORK backed by a promise. TWO PROBLEMS!
              1. Artwork can be copied ad nauseum.
              2. There is NO real promise. They have redefined the word, and those least likely to honor any promise are the ones often asked to sign. It is little more than a "rubber stamp" ANYWAY!

              Truth be told, the money we have NOW is EXACTLY like the money we had, but it USED to be backed by precious metals and therefore the people were FORCED to limit supply! The promise was considered SACRED and breaking it was akin to, in this case, TREASON!

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8834713].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Young Financier
                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                In OTHER words, you are saying that a gold standard won't help if we violate it!
                A gold standard WON'T help if we don't have a gold standard.

                That sounds kind of crazy. GOLD back then was worth like $25! SO, if we were on the gold standard, we would have a dollar that is worth about 4900% of what it is now! That is about on par with what it was then. Looks like it works to ME! IMAGINE! Someone that has $4900 NOW would only need about $1. And HOW do you track gold?

                Gold has 4 main things in its favor that fiat currency will NEVER have!
                1. You can't make more.
                2. It won't go away.
                3. It looks nice and can be used EVERYWHERE!
                4. It has intrinsic value.

                What is the MAIN problem with currency? It is ARTWORK backed by a promise. TWO PROBLEMS!
                1. Artwork can be copied ad nauseum.
                2. There is NO real promise. They have redefined the word, and those least likely to honor any promise are the ones often asked to sign. It is little more than a "rubber stamp" ANYWAY!

                Truth be told, the money we have NOW is EXACTLY like the money we had, but it USED to be backed by precious metals and therefore the people were FORCED to limit supply! The promise was considered SACRED and breaking it was akin to, in this case, TREASON!

                Steve
                Gold can simply be violated through the fractional reserve lending system. People forget that it's not government that creates most of the money in our society, it is the commercial banks. Those credits count as money on the Fed's books. In fact, 90% of the "money" in America is actually credit and not money.

                Besides, gold only concentrates wealth into the hands of a few. History is riddled with accounts of economies flourishing when using a local government currency, and then going to ruins once switching to a gold standard. It's also easy for unscrupulous characters to manipulate any commodity-based money system. Only thing they'd have to do is corner the market and they then control that nation's money supply.

                In America, if we had remained on the gold standard, we could have never expanded into the powerhouse that we became because there simply wouldn't be enough capital for expansion. Every depression in history has been caused by a contraction of the money supply, and a gold standard is nothing but a permanent contraction of the money supply. Nothing has to back a money source...only thing that matters is who creates it and the quantity of money in circulation. The closest America ever came to an ideal money source was Lincoln's greenbacks.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8834928].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Devin X
                  Banned
                  Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

                  There's certainly no shame in having a job, but the real reason for getting one is to use it as a jumping board for your own enterprise.
                  Most people cannot be entrepreneurs with their own enterprises. They can't. That's not how our economy works.

                  Originally Posted by Young Financier View Post

                  Actually, Nixon took us off of the gold-exchange standard. We've been off the gold standard since 1933. Coming off of the gold standard was one of the major contributors to the ending of the Great Depression, as we then went on to experience great growth. Gold as money is outdated. Money supply can still grow out of control on a gold standard through the bank's fractional reserve lending system. Gold is not the solution to our monetary problems. In fact, gold has a horrible track record of stability...causing deflationary depressions.
                  No, we've been off the gold standard since 1913. No idea where you pulled 1933 from, but you're mistaken.

                  Originally Posted by Young Financier View Post

                  Credit can simply be violated through the fractional reserve lending system. People forget that it's not government that creates most of the money in our society, it is the commercial banks. Those credits count as money on the Fed's books. In fact, 90% of the "money" in America is actually credit and not money.

                  Besides, Credit only concentrates wealth into the hands of a few. History is riddled with accounts of economies flourishing when using a local government currency, and then going to ruins once switching to a Credit standard. It's also easy for unscrupulous characters to manipulate any Credit-based money system. Only thing they'd have to do is corner the market and they then control that nation's money supply.
                  Fixed that for you, since it was so riddled with errors. You also just described the credit based system and it's problems to the T. It's only created an illusion of power and wealth...like a ponzi scheme. it's only concentrated wealth into the hands of a few. It's only made it so so easy to manipulate, because it isn't backed by anything. It's been cornered in the market by the FED/IMF/WBG, who is the sole authority when it comes to the creation of currency for every nation. That's sick....and should be remedied.

                  Originally Posted by Young Financier View Post

                  In America, if we had remained on the gold standard, we could have never expanded into the powerhouse that we became because there simply wouldn't be enough capital for expansion. Every depression in history has been caused by a contraction of the money supply, and a gold standard is nothing but a permanent contraction of the money supply. Nothing has to back a money source...only thing that matters is who creates it and the quantity of money in circulation. The closest America ever came to an ideal money source was Lincoln's greenbacks.
                  I'm not for going back on the gold standard, but I know that a credit-based system that we have, is worse. Furthermore, there HAS to be something to back a money source, so you're wrong there as well. Every depression in history was caused by a few idiots spoiling the fun for everyone else. True in Rome...it's true today. And that's all I have to say about that.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8835114].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by Young Financier View Post

                  Gold can simply be violated through the fractional reserve lending system. People forget that it's not government that creates most of the money in our society, it is the commercial banks. Those credits count as money on the Fed's books. In fact, 90% of the "money" in America is actually credit and not money.
                  YEAH, it is VIOLATED! Commercial banks may create initial value, but THEY DO NOT CREATE MONEY! Credits are NOT money, and DON'T count as it! They are PROMISES of money! THAT is why it is called CREDIT! To HAVE CREDIT means they can be TRUSTED! It isn't even on the books as MONEY. It is on the books as an ASSET valued in money. It becomes an ACCOUNT RECEIVABLE. It isn't considered MONEY, until it is PAID! THAT is why banks can have TRILLIONS of dollars of loans, and STILL go BANKRUPT with NO other expenses. It is why homes are repossessed and AUCTIONED! You see:

                  1. You get a mortgage.
                  2. The bank eventually will go to the GOVERNMENT to get a LOAN in MONEY.
                  3. At escrow, the BANK gets the home, you get the keys, and the seller gets the money.
                  4. If you pay all, the bank gives you the note and closes the account. The government has been paid off!
                  5. If you DON'T pay it all, they EVICT you(Often called Foreclosure), and try to sell the home to at least cover their costs.
                  6. If they can't cover their costs, they must get money ELSEWHERE to pay off THEIR debt.

                  Besides, gold only concentrates wealth into the hands of a few. History is riddled with accounts of economies flourishing when using a local government currency, and then going to ruins once switching to a gold standard. It's also easy for unscrupulous characters to manipulate any commodity-based money system. Only thing they'd have to do is corner the market and they then control that nation's money supply.
                  HOW do you destroy the money supply? In a TRUE goldstandard society, like we DID have, selling $20 worth of gold only got you $20, and same with buying.

                  In America, if we had remained on the gold standard, we could have never expanded into the powerhouse that we became because there simply wouldn't be enough capital for expansion. Every depression in history has been caused by a contraction of the money supply, and a gold standard is nothing but a permanent contraction of the money supply.
                  I don't know how you figure, especially since you said they current system has NO contraction, and yet we have depressions.

                  Nothing has to back a money source...only thing that matters is who creates it and the quantity of money in circulation. The closest America ever came to an ideal money source was Lincoln's greenbacks.
                  OK, WHO has to create it? Sources proven to be BAD:
                  Government
                  Dictators
                  Evil "investors"
                  Central Bank
                  Bank

                  And what quantity must be created? You say ENDLESS! OK, print me up 3 trillion dollars! I will GLADLY let you keep 30 billion as payment!

                  Steve
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8835617].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Karen Blundell
            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

            After Nixon's move we went from a cash based society to a credit based society.
            and it's all been unraveling ever since -

            Signature
            ---------------
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8850891].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author LarryC
      Originally Posted by Young Financier View Post

      Only liberal Americans would think that a guy flipping burgers deserves to get paid the same amount as the guy who's responsible for the existence of the company. People who work with their mind will always be paid more than people who work with their body. It's supply and demand. You can hire anybody to do the physical labor, but you can't hire just any ole Joe to do the mental work, which by the way is the hardest type of work there is.

      I honestly believe that in America at least, so-called poverty is punishment for not taking the time to educate yourself on how the game is played. You don't even have to attend college to understand the game to which I'm referring. The American system is setup to reward those who can figure out this game and take advantage of it at the right time. It's funny how a lot of foreigners come to America and do well for themselves because they've figured out the game, but most Americans who have been here their whole lives never figure it out.
      I doubt if even "liberal Americans" advocate paying workers the same as CEOs. One of the issues here is just how extreme the gap has become. Apparently, Peter Drucker, hardly a member of the communist party, advocated a 20-1 ratio between the highest and lowest paid. Granted, like any number, it's rather arbitrary. But the fact is, the gap is now closer to 350-1 in the U.S.

      Sure, we can romanticize corporate executives as creative geniuses who hold our economy together and dismiss workers as losers who should have planned their lives better -this point of view is especially popular among entrepreneurs. But things aren't so simple today, when corporations probably receive more government handouts (directly or indirectly) than welfare recipients and even people who want to work have trouble finding real jobs.

      http://www.latimes.com/business/la-f...#axzz2pFgLpjdX
      Signature
      Content Writing, Ghostwriting, eBooks, editing, research.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8832029].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
        When I hear about the very very poor, in the USA, I ask "What are you doing to improve your lot in life?".

        It's not a popular question.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8832161].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by LarryC View Post

        I doubt if even "liberal Americans" advocate paying workers the same as CEOs. One of the issues here is just how extreme the gap has become. Apparently, Peter Drucker, hardly a member of the communist party, advocated a 20-1 ratio between the highest and lowest paid. Granted, like any number, it's rather arbitrary. But the fact is, the gap is now closer to 350-1 in the U.S.

        Sure, we can romanticize corporate executives as creative geniuses who hold our economy together and dismiss workers as losers who should have planned their lives better -this point of view is especially popular among entrepreneurs. But things aren't so simple today, when corporations probably receive more government handouts (directly or indirectly) than welfare recipients and even people who want to work have trouble finding real jobs.

        CEO-to-worker pay gap is obscene; want to know how obscene? - latimes.com
        NOBODY is calling workers losers. HECK, **I** am a worker. In fact, if there were more workers, fewer would be vocal on EITHER side!

        But the 20:1 or 350:1 IS VERY arbitrary! THINK ABOUT IT! If EVERYONE were paid the same regardless, there would be NO desire to "make more"(since it would be STOLEN), and NO desire to invest, give to charity, or help humanity, because it would drive you to the poorhouse, though one wonders how you could do that since you couldn't spend a PENNY, since it would be stolen by the "government". If people had the ability to make even ONE penny more, that would be an extra $3 MILLION if they got all to pay.

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8832569].message }}
  • Personally, I think it would be nice to see some more discussion about the OP's question of "what should be done," instead of a handful of partisans attempting to show off how smart they think they are.
    Signature

    Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
    _______________________________________________
    "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8832656].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

      Personally, I think it would be nice to see some more discussion about the OP's question of "what should be done," instead of a handful of partisans attempting to show off how smart they think they are.
      First you have to identify what actually causes the problem.
      It's the smart people that look for the cause, it's those attempting to show how smart they are that just look at what should be done without understanding what the real problem is.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8832708].message }}
      • Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        First you have to identify what actually causes the problem.
        It's the smart people that look for the cause
        , it's those attempting to show how smart they are that just look at what should be done without understanding what the real problem is.
        "The" cause? I hope you're not implying that only one thing causes poverty.

        What's so disappointing, though, is that so many of these supposedly smart people identifying the cause(s) never even hint at proposing any solutions.
        Signature

        Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
        _______________________________________________
        "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8832932].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
          Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

          "The" cause? I hope you're not implying that only one thing causes poverty.

          What's so disappointing, though, is that so many of these supposedly smart people identifying the cause(s) never even hint at proposing any solutions.
          No more then one thing can cause poverty.
          But you can't just look at 40,000,000 in poverty and just say we have to do something.
          There have been plenty of hints at solutions right in this thread. But one bigger problem is many solutions don't conform to what the whiners want and don't conform to what the govt. thinks are solutions.
          Many people think raising the min. wage is a solution., even though it's never worked in the past.
          I think giving value back to our money would help.
          Start teaching how to manage your money again in high school.
          The govt. needs to set a better example also. They now convey a message that debt and credit are good. People follow that example. Instead of teaching people to depend on themselves and be more self sufficient they teach people to depend on govt. programs. Look at food stamps for example. For the last few years you would see commercials on TV promoting the food stamp program. "Don't have enough money for food?""No problem we'll help." Last year the USDA was bragging that they now had more people on food stamps then ever before, this year congress cut the funding to the program.
          I always felt if you applied for and received food stamps that you should also have to go to classes to learn how to grocery shop to get more value and how to grow some of your own food.
          The real bottom line is if you feel you are living in poverty and want to change that, then you are responsible for that change.
          Depending on the govt. or someone else (who doesn't know your situation) to come up with a solution will just keep you in poverty.
          Signature

          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
          Getting old ain't for sissy's
          As you are I was, as I am you will be
          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8833002].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
          Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

          "The" cause? I hope you're not implying that only one thing causes poverty.

          What's so disappointing, though, is that so many of these supposedly smart people identifying the cause(s) never even hint at proposing any solutions.
          The solution is simple, but people don't want to hear it: Personal responsibility. Rather than waiting for society to solve your problem, solve it for yourself.
          Signature

          If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8833023].message }}
          • Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

            The solution is simple, but people don't want to hear it: Personal responsibility. Rather than waiting for society to solve your problem, solve it for yourself.
            Personal responsibility by itself will never create enough jobs that pay a living wage, no matter how much you may want it to. Not everyone has the imagination, talent, and resources to become a successful entrepreneur.

            (Not to mention those who are too disabled to work, who are of course a minority, but don't deserve to be neglected for that reason.)
            Signature

            Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
            _______________________________________________
            "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8833273].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
              Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

              Personal responsibility by itself will never create enough jobs that pay a living wage, no matter how much you may want it to. Not everyone has the imagination, talent, and resources to become a successful entrepreneur.

              (Not to mention those who are too disabled to work, who are of course a minority, but don't deserve to be neglected for that reason.)
              It's not a business owner's responsibility to create jobs, let alone jobs at a living wage. The base function of a business is to create wealth for its owner. If you want a living wage, develop a living wage skill.

              So, again, personal responsibility. There will always be the poor, the middle, and the wealthy. It's an individual's responsibility to determine their lot in life.

              Additionally, one doesn't have to be an entrepreneur to avoid poverty. I don't think this warrants further explanation.

              As for those who aren't creative, talented, or intelligent, the world will always need ditch diggers. Sure, it seems callous from a microeconomic standpoint, but perfectly reasonable from a macro view.
              Signature

              If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8833319].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

              Personal responsibility by itself will never create enough jobs that pay a living wage, no matter how much you may want it to. Not everyone has the imagination, talent, and resources to become a successful entrepreneur.

              (Not to mention those who are too disabled to work, who are of course a minority, but don't deserve to be neglected for that reason.)
              who said ANYTHING about imagination, or talent, or becoming an entrepreneur?

              Those too disabled to work, that are a SMALL FRACTION of those now on disability, can certainly be helped, but that is usually not THEIR fault!

              What does being a minority have to do with anything? If you have some ability people need, I bet 90% or more DON'T care what color you are, etc.... And want to hear a secret? Some whites WON'T get hired by places because they are WHITE! So why don't WHITES get such consideration?

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8833413].message }}
            • Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

              Personal responsibility encompasses much more than "creating jobs." First off, why in the hell does everyone want a job? Aren't you much better off working for yourself?

              Personal responsibility means taking care of those less fortunate according to your means, teaching what you know to help others, giving people a leg up.

              You're responsible for the world you create.
              I consider that an excellent way to define personal responsibility, and if every adult had it (as you defined), the world would be a much better place.

              Unfortunately, I don't believe many people would agree with your definition. Most of the time the phrase "personal responsibility" is used as code for "I'll grab everything I can, keep it all, and f--- the rest of the world."

              Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

              It's ironic that those who carp the most about those evil corporations are often the same ones bitching about jobs. Where the hell do you think they come from?

              A job is just another form of servitude.
              Actually, big corporations DON'T create jobs. Yes, you heard me. They employ lots of people, but most of them have anemic job creation rates, if they're not periodically downsizing.

              It makes perfect sense, if you think about it. Bigger companies are unlikely to be able to increase their profits through huge expansion, so they start to look at ways to become more efficient. Generally that means not adding a lot of expensive human labor. That's not evil; it's just a natural phase in the life of a company.

              Point being, it's the small businesses that create the jobs, not the big ones. Washington pays lip service to small businesses, but never actually does much to help them hire. Changing that alone would put a dent in poverty rates, IMO.
              Signature

              Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
              _______________________________________________
              "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8835541].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                Washington pays lip service to small businesses, but never actually does much to help them hire. Changing that alone would put a dent in poverty rates, IMO.
                I'm not one to defend government programming, but the SBA guaranteed $29.6 billion in loans in fiscal 2013. The total guaranteed portfolio exceeds $600 billion. These are loans that would not have been made without SBA assistance. I don't call that lip service.
                Signature

                If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8835636].message }}
                • Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

                  I'm not one to defend government programming, but the SBA guaranteed $29.6 billion in loans in fiscal 2013. The total guaranteed portfolio exceeds $600 billion. These are loans that would not have been made without SBA assistance. I don't call that lip service.
                  The next time you have an hour to kill, I recommend (Just for Fun!) skimming the most recent federal budget. It won't take you long to discover that $29 billion is, in fact, peanuts.
                  Signature

                  Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                  _______________________________________________
                  "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8836074].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                    Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                    The next time you have an hour to kill, I recommend (Just for Fun!) skimming the most recent federal budget. It won't take you long to discover that $29 billion is, in fact, peanuts.
                    Um, $29 billion isn't the cap, my friend. It's what was actually used by small businesses. The money for expansion is there. The government has even loosened the requirements for funding. That $29 billion represents roughly 40,000 small business loans.
                    Signature

                    If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8836232].message }}
                    • Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

                      Um, $29 billion isn't the cap, my friend. It's what was actually used by small businesses. The money for expansion is there. The government has even loosened the requirements for funding. That $29 billion represents roughly 40,000 small business loans.
                      Out of several million small businesses. Not a very impressive percentage. Especially when 90% of those businesses fail within the first year or two.
                      Signature

                      Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                      _______________________________________________
                      "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8838569].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
                        Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                        Out of several million small businesses. Not a very impressive percentage. Especially when 90% of those businesses fail within the first year or two.
                        Most business fail for a reason: they aren't viable - no matter how much government assistance you throw at them.

                        Actually, the numbers are impressive. It means the remaining viable businesses are performing well enough to not require government-guaranteed loans.
                        Signature

                        If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8839165].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Dennis Gaskill
                        Originally Posted by Dan Riffle View Post

                        Um, $29 billion isn't the cap, my friend. It's what was actually used by small businesses. The money for expansion is there. The government has even loosened the requirements for funding. That $29 billion represents roughly 40,000 small business loans.
                        Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                        Out of several million small businesses. Not a very impressive percentage. Especially when 90% of those businesses fail within the first year or two.
                        I'll bet the percentage would be much more impressive if it were compared against the number of small businesses that actually applied for help, instead of against the total number of businesses. :rolleyes:
                        Signature

                        Just when you think you've got it all figured out, someone changes the rules.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8839230].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                    The next time you have an hour to kill, I recommend (Just for Fun!) skimming the most recent federal budget. It won't take you long to discover that $29 billion is, in fact, peanuts.
                    I LOVE peanuts! Can you send me a few please?

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8836514].message }}
                    • Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                      I LOVE peanuts! Can you send me a few please?

                      Steve
                      Here you go:

                      Signature

                      Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                      _______________________________________________
                      "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8838945].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                        Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                        Here you go:

                        NO!!!!! You said $29 Billion "was peanuts". So I want that much money, and PHYSICALLY.

                        Steve
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8839858].message }}
                        • Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                          NO!!!!! You said $29 Billion "was peanuts". So I want that much money, and PHYSICALLY.

                          Steve
                          Not what you asked for, but sure! Give me taxing authority over 300 million people and I'll give you the $29B in cash.

                          (I get to keep the rest, however.)
                          Signature

                          Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                          _______________________________________________
                          "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8840397].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                            Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                            Not what you asked for, but sure! Give me taxing authority over 300 million people and I'll give you the $29B in cash.

                            (I get to keep the rest, however.)
                            Well, you don't have much less than the government! But YOU said it was PEANUTS, and that the money is a contrivance that can be easily ignored!

                            I simply want my crutch and, since you said it was nothing, figured I could have some. HECK, weren't YOU the one I offered the 1% deal to? Get me $3,000,000,000,000, and I would pay you $30,000,000,000!?!?!?

                            Steve
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8840649].message }}
                            • Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                              Well, you don't have much less than the government! But YOU said it was PEANUTS, and that the money is a contrivance that can be easily ignored!

                              I simply want my crutch and, since you said it was nothing, figured I could have some. HECK, weren't YOU the one I offered the 1% deal to? Get me $3,000,000,000,000, and I would pay you $30,000,000,000!?!?!?

                              Steve
                              I'm pretty sure that you never extended any such offer to me, Steve. But if you did, it only serves to show how forgettable that post was.
                              Signature

                              Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                              _______________________________________________
                              "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8843298].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                                I'm pretty sure that you never extended any such offer to me, Steve. But if you did, it only serves to show how forgettable that post was.
                                FUNNY! Like I REALLY thought THAT would be my magnum opus!

                                Steve
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8843582].message }}
              • Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

                I see where you're coming from. The jobs in corporations weren't created by corporations. Apparently, they just happened via some as yet unknown evolutionary process. Small companies never grow to be big companies.
                You weren't listening, Ken. Maybe you intentionally missed the point, but maybe not. So I'll rephrase the argument as succinctly as I can:

                On a per-year basis, the net gain in new jobs comes from small businesses, not the major corporations. I hope that's clear enough.

                Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

                You may not realize this, but you are advocating force to get people to bend to your will. All this talk about job creation, poverty rates, getting government to help businesses hire, all of it reeks of government control.

                It's a good idea to help people. It is not a good idea to force your vision of help on people by taking their money or property, putting them in a cage, or killing them. If you look at the basis of all government programs, you will find one or more of those three methods is the motivating force behind it.
                Every law that ever has been, or ever will be, passed carries the implied threat of force. That's simply the nature of laws.

                In the case of the United States, the citizens have the power to change those laws. As long as they do, it's pretty ridiculous to claim that they're somehow victims of government force, or that certain segments of Americans are somehow evil for wanting to implement their will by means of this force. We've been doing it for 238 years.
                Signature

                Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                _______________________________________________
                "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8836409].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                  As long as they do, it's pretty ridiculous to claim that they're somehow victims of government force, or that certain segments of Americans are somehow evil for wanting to implement their will by means of this force. We've been doing it for 238 years.
                  YEAH and FROGS like WARM WATER! What is your point? MY point is that that frog ay soon be COOKED because of an act that it did INTENTIONALLY!

                  Force comes in all kinds, from a baby ant moving its antenna to HUGE vehicles that shock people with their immense size. Again, fail to see your point.

                  Steve
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8836529].message }}
                • Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

                  So, you justify force by the government with the truly weak argument that I can change it? Please. I'm not very interested in the good old non-existent we.
                  You said yourself that "You are responsible for the world you create." Part of personal responsibility, correct? It follows that you had better take an interest in your government or its the corruption increase. Either way, it's on you.

                  And yes, certain segments of the populace are most assuredly evil in wanting to implement their policies by force.
                  Some people who draft laws have evil intentions behind them, and others have good intentions. All the more reason to take an interest.
                  Signature

                  Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                  _______________________________________________
                  "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8838565].message }}
                  • Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

                    Of course I take an interest in government. That's why I want it to leave me the hell alone.

                    All laws are coercive, so intentions don't matter much. The government is not a panacea. It is not a tool for doing good. It's not a reflection of the popular will.

                    It's a necessary evil. We should keep it to a bare minimum.
                    And how do you propose to get tens of millions of voters to agree on what the 'bare minimum' even is? (Apart from using coercive legislation, which you appear to hate so much.)

                    If you've got a better way, I'd be delighted to hear how it would work.
                    Signature

                    Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                    _______________________________________________
                    "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8838994].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
                      The arguing for and against the ACA has gotten staler than month old bread. The reality of "new standards" is composed of mandatory pregnancy benefits and mandatory pediatric benefits (whether you need those benefits or not). This law will succeed or fail - and all the talk in the world won't be able hide its success....or it's failure - whichever is the case.

                      Ten years from now people will talk about how rough the rollout was and how happy they are we stuck with it to make it work - or they will be condemning soundly those who came up with this plan and pushed it through. No amount of rhetoric on either side will be relevant at that point.
                      Signature
                      Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

                      Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8839233].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

                        The arguing for and against the ACA has gotten staler than month old bread. The reality of "new standards" is composed of mandatory pregnancy benefits and mandatory pediatric benefits (whether you need those benefits or not). This law will succeed or fail - and all the talk in the world won't be able hide its success....or it's failure - whichever is the case.

                        Ten years from now people will talk about how rough the rollout was and how happy they are we stuck with it to make it work - or they will be condemning soundly those who came up with this plan and pushed it through. No amount of rhetoric on either side will be relevant at that point.
                        I don't know about you, but I live in the US and am taxed. If you take taxes, use them to IMPROVE THE COUNTRY, not line people's pockets. THAT is ONE reason I am against it. ALSO, I may lose MY insurance by next year. It is NOT a sub par plan. It is better than any I saw on that website. They even covered my whole operation WITHOUT QUESTION! They cover all my tests WITHOUT QUESTION.

                        For the "new standard", you are WRONG! They have lowered the suggested parameters for preventative tests for men and women. ALSO, they apparently now include "gender reassignment surgery"! as for the supposed NEW pediatric benefits, please name even ONE! I can tell you that many plans included such things. I NEVER heard of an employers plan that DIDN'T! Actually, I never heard of ANY that didn't. They also have a list somewhere that they are SUPPOSED to make for the "new standard". I don't even know if it EXISTS yet! I guess it DOESN'T because the parameters for the board means it will take a while to create that list, and a list would mean that the insurer wouldn't have an OVER 2 hour delay in approving a procedure.

                        ALL insurance has such lists, and the bill stated it was to be created by that board which WILL be effectively 1/2 politicians. Some insurance will approve things others will not, etc...

                        In business, when they do things like this, they have something known as a "PROOF OF CONCEPT" Proof of concept - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . As a programmer, I have been in enough of those, both to prove my OWN, and to prove others. Some are FAILURES! One bank, for example, decided to use a product for an unintended purpose. A failure, and sometimes even ONE mistake in MILLIONS of records, could mean Possibly even the loss of the BANK! The software cost MILLIONS! Do you think they just bought it, and trusted it? NOPE! They had the vendor allow them to use it on trial, and they ran it in parallel and tested everything. LUCKILY, it worked well enough that they used it for those things it did well with. This should have been done before passing that law.

                        And WHY do we have a requirement that allows some to get a subsidy, and some are taxed, with the IRS, and the IRS has NO method to do so? If the IRS DOES have a method to do so, why is it that, TO THIS DAY, it is not being used for the website?

                        RUSH said that HE would have HAPPILY already had it done for an 1/8th of the cost already. HECK, I believe him even though I know he may not have programmed anything. I KNOW I could have. YEAH, I AM aware that it would have to go through insurance companies, the IRS, etc....

                        And WHY are we paying potentially MILLIONS of people to destroy privacy and security in the US? I recently went to my hospital where someone was "training", and I asked them how they reconcile ACA with HIPPA. They had NO COMMENT!

                        What I would have done was:

                        Naw, I guess I won't make it THAT easy. I have it down to 6 easy steps though. Easy for the government, IRS, insurance companies, AND USER!

                        I'll bet that is more work than was done up to last october on this part! and WHY do we need the "navigators", or call takers? It's DUMB, ILLEGAL, and helps NOBODY in a reasonable way.

                        Steve
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8840021].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                      Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                      And how do you propose to get tens of millions of voters to agree on what the 'bare minimum' even is? (Apart from using coercive legislation, which you appear to hate so much.)

                      If you've got a better way, I'd be delighted to hear how it would work.
                      I will give it to you in a nutshell!

                      1. Raising wages raises COSTS!
                      2. Raising costs means PRICES eventually must, AND WILL, go up!
                      3. Raising prices means COSTS go up elsewhere!
                      4. Raising COSTS mean PRICES eventually must, AND WILL, go up!

                      OK, now HERE is the key part to your question, ok?????.....

                      5. Higher prices on all those things means the cost of living has gone up!
                      6. People at the lower levels start demanding more. The minimum wage means they will likely get it.
                      7. If the people are at a low enough level, the impact of even a few pennies may start the cycle ALL OVER AGAIN!

                      OK, SIMPLE! SO as the rate goes higher, it simply makes it more likely that the rate will go higher. So you will NEVER attain what you claim to want. EVEN if you paid them a MILLION dollars an hour, it would NOT be enough. SERIOUSLY! I am not exaggerating AT ALL in that. HECK, if someone in 1920 heard what we were paying today as a minimum wage, they might say "WOW, that sounds like a pretty good DAILY wage! EVERYONE is guaranteed to make at least that much? Even short order cooks?".

                      Did you catch that? The AVERAGE DAILY wage, in 1920, assuming working ONLY 40 hours a week and 5 days a week, was LESS than $4.85! The yearly wage was $1236.((y/2040)*8)(8=hours in workday), (2040 is a standard 255 workdays at 8 hours each(approx 4.9 days a week))

                      IMAGINE! They might have thought that if they made close to 2 days wages every hour that they would be on EASY STREET! When the minimum wage laws started, the minimum HOURLY wage was $0.25, or $510/YEAR(h*2040)! For the 1930s, apparently data is skewed. Let's pick "waitstaff" as the average. At $9000, it WAS pretty low. It really WAS BY FAR the lowest on the list of occupations I saw! That means the average HOURLY wage would have been OVER $4.41/hour. Why do YOU think the minimum wage was SO low in comparison.

                      It REALLY is interesting how they PRIDE themselves in wages going up when they have really DROPPED. And they compare based on average wages even as skills, and thereby the average value, DROP!

                      Steve
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8839935].message }}
                    • Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

                      You don't. It's not a question for the voters. We have a constitution that limits government. We simply need to elect people who will follow the law.

                      We also need to prosecute those who don't.
                      That constitution, without the force of law, isn't worth the parchment it's written on. Not to mention that some of the world's brightest legal scholars can't even agree among themselves about what it actually means. Back to square one.
                      Signature

                      Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                      _______________________________________________
                      "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8840392].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                        Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                        That constitution, without the force of law, isn't worth the parchment it's written on. Not to mention that some of the world's brightest legal scholars can't even agree among themselves about what it actually means. Back to square one.
                        They KNOW what it means! It just gets in the way of their agenda! And THAT is ALSO why the law isn't enforced!

                        Steve
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8840643].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                        Dave, Dave, Dave. Don't you know we have some of the top constitutional minds in the world here at the WF? There's no need for any other bright legal scholars. Heck, Seasoned is such an expert on the constitution he has even rewritten it. That's how much he loves it bro.

                        Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                        Not to mention that some of the world's brightest legal scholars can't even agree among themselves about what it actually means.
                        Signature
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8843391].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                          Dave, Dave, Dave. Don't you know we have some of the top constitutional minds in the world here at the WF? There's no need for any other bright legal scholars. Heck, Seasoned is such an expert on the constitution he has even rewritten it. That's how much he loves it bro.
                          And a whole bunch of top notch economists to boot. They really know how to make the American economy hum.
                          Signature

                          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8848591].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                            And a whole bunch of top notch economists to boot. They really know how to make the American economy hum.
                            Yep those folks in Washington sure are top notch, aren't they:rolleyes:
                            Signature

                            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                            Getting old ain't for sissy's
                            As you are I was, as I am you will be
                            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8849268].message }}
                      • Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

                        Silliness. Do you honestly think that the constitution is unreadable, that its meaning is unclear? If "the world's brightest scholars" can't understand it, perhaps they aren't as bright as you think. The constitution was written to be read by the people. It is straightforward and clear. You should check your emperors for clothing.

                        I realize from your posts that you engage in circular thinking, but that doesn't put us back to square one. It points to your lack of engagement with text.

                        Of course the constitution has force of law. No one ever said it didn't. What annoys me is people who obfuscate and want to use force of law to advance their ideas. If the constitution is followed, we live under rule of law. When it is weakened by airy, foolish interpretations, we live under chaos.

                        Once again, we are not a democracy, regardless of what anyone tells you. We are a constitutional republic. When the constitution is ignored, misunderstood, reviled, the rule of law weakens and we have situations like we have now.

                        Does the constitution have anything to say about marriage?

                        No.

                        Does the constitution have anything to say about abortion?

                        No.

                        Yet, liars insist that these are constitutional issues.

                        If you want to know what the constitution says, read it. It's there for everyone.
                        Not silliness at all. Once again, you missed the whole point.

                        The question I asked you was how to get American voters to agree on what the 'bare minimum' of government is, without resorting to coercion through law. You tried to answer by falling back on "the constitution," which you concede relies on law, and therefore coercion. So obviously you didn't answer the question.

                        For the record, it doesn't make much difference to me whether you come up with an answer or not. Just don't pretend that laws spring forth from some 'sacred' document when you happen to like them, and that they're coercive and reflect 'too much government' when you don't.
                        Signature

                        Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                        _______________________________________________
                        "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8849871].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author socialentry
                          Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                          Not silliness at all. Once again, you missed the whole point.

                          The question I asked you was how to get American voters to agree on what the 'bare minimum' of government is, without resorting to coercion through law. You tried to answer by falling back on "the constitution," which you concede relies on law, and therefore coercion. So obviously you didn't answer the question.

                          For the record, it doesn't make much difference to me whether you come up with an answer or not. Just don't pretend that laws spring forth from some 'sacred' document when you happen to like them, and that they're coercive and reflect 'too much government' when you don't.
                          Military coup?
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8849885].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                          Yep. The sacred document that was flawed from the beginning and written by very flawed people. Luckily they were smart enough to realize this and included both a Supreme Court to interprit it and the ability to add amendments. But hell, with the brainpower we have here I think we should just eliminate the Supreme Court and just have people post legal questions in the off topic section of the Warrior Forum to get answers to any questions about what is and isn't constitutional.

                          By the way, just to give you an idea of how Ken's mind works, he thinks he has the constitutional right to drive around drunk. To him drunk driving laws are unconstitutional. Correct me if I am wrong Ken. Funny, the constitution doesn't mention drunk driving either.

                          Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                          Just don't pretend that laws spring forth from some 'sacred' document when you happen to like them, and that they're coercive and reflect 'too much government' when you don't.
                          Signature
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8849923].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            Yep. The sacred document that was flawed from the beginning and written by very flawed people. Luckily they were smart enough to realize this and included both a Supreme Court to interprit it and the ability to add amendments. But hell, with the brainpower we have here I think we should just eliminate the Supreme Court and just have people post legal questions in the off topic section of the Warrior Forum to get answers to any questions about what is and isn't constitutional.

                            By the way, just to give you an idea of how Ken's mind works, he thinks he has the constitutional right to drive around drunk. To him drunk driving laws are unconstitutional. Correct me if I am wrong Ken. Funny, the constitution doesn't mention drunk driving either.
                            Correct me if I'M wrong Tim, but aren't drunk driving laws state laws? I guess that gives us an idea of how your mind works
                            By the way because they are state laws they are legal under the Constitution.
                            Signature

                            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                            Getting old ain't for sissy's
                            As you are I was, as I am you will be
                            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8849992].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                              I'm not the one claiming to have the right to drive around drunk Thom. State laws can be struck down by federal judges.
                              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                              Correct me if I'M wrong Tim, but aren't drunk driving laws state laws? I guess that gives us an idea of how your mind works
                              By the way because they are state laws they are legal under the Constitution.
                              Signature
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8850032].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                I'm not the one claiming to have the right to drive around drunk Thom. State laws can be struck down be federal judges.
                                State laws can be struck down if they're unconstitutional. Like the max. number of bullets allowed in a clip (NY Safe Act) was struck down by a federal judge for being unconstitutional but the rest of the law was upheld as not being unconstitutional.
                                I don't remember Ken ever saying we have a right to drive drunk, at least not seriously. But Ken can speak for himself.
                                Signature

                                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8850125].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            Yep. The sacred document that was flawed from the beginning and written by very flawed people. Luckily they were smart enough to realize this and included both a Supreme Court to interpret it and the ability to add amendments.


                            But hell, with the brainpower we have here I think we should just eliminate the Supreme Court and just have people post legal questions in the off topic section of the Warrior Forum to get answers to any questions about what is and isn't constitutional.

                            By the way, just to give you an idea of how Ken's mind works, he thinks he has the constitutional right to drive around drunk.

                            To him drunk driving laws are unconstitutional.

                            Correct me if I am wrong Ken. Funny, the constitution doesn't mention drunk driving either.

                            Thanks Tim!
                            Signature

                            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8850050].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                            Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

                            Does the constitution have anything to say about marriage?

                            No.

                            Does the constitution have anything to say about abortion?

                            No.

                            Yet, liars insist that these are constitutional issues...

                            No, the constitution does not mention drunk driving. Thus it is a matter for the states, as are marriage and abortion.
                            Ken, let me try to explain this to you so you can understand. There are many, many things that are not mentioned in the Constitution which can be and are constitutional issues. When you say marriage and abortion are not constitutional issues that is what is called an opinion. Other people, some who have become something that is called a Supreme Court Justice ( Do a Google and you can go read about them. ) disagree with you on this. Here's the deal, your opinion on what issue is considered a constitutional issue doesn't really hold up that well against what these Supreme Court Justices think. So if they decide to take a case and make a decision on an issue that issue is by definition a constitutional issue. See how that works there?

                            By the way, thanks for the confirmation of your views on drunk driving because I don't think Thom believed me. Sorry my argument and reading skills make you sad but frankly I don't care. You can just go cry in your beer and then drive home feeling content about doing your part to fight our terrible evil government.
                            Signature
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8851022].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                              Ken, let me try to explain this to you so you can understand. There are many, many things that are not mentioned in the Constitution which can be and are constitutional issues. When you say marriage and abortion are not constitutional issues that is what is called an opinion. Other people, some who have become something that is called a Supreme Court Justice ( Do a Google and you can go read about them. ) disagree with you on this. Here's the deal, your opinion on what issue is considered a constitutional issue doesn't really hold up that well to what these Supreme Court Justices think. So if they decide to take a case and make a decision on an issue that issue is by definition a constitutional issue. See how that works there?

                              By the way, thanks for the confirmation of your views on drunk driving because I don't think Thom believed me. Sorry my argument and reading skills make you sad but frankly I don't care. You can just go cry in your beer and then drive home feeling content about doing your part to fight our terrible evil government.
                              I read Ken's reply about drinking and driving and agree. But then his idea is based on personal responsibility and being responsible for your actions instead of the govt. taking that responsibility from you and punishing you for your actions wither you harm someone or their property or not.
                              The constitution was designed to limit government and protect a persons rights. So ANYTHING that infringes on a persons rights is a constitutional issue. Which is why marriage and abortion have had to be brought before the supreme court. Marraige and abortion in themselves are not constitutional issues, the govt. trying to regulate who can marry and who can have an abortion are. Why two consenting adults need permission from the govt. to marry really escapes me. Maybe you can enlighten me as to what business the govt. has in telling me who I can marry in the first place. Never mind I figured it out. It's just another way for them to extort money from people.
                              Signature

                              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                              Getting old ain't for sissy's
                              As you are I was, as I am you will be
                              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8851131].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                I read Ken's reply about drinking and driving and agree.
                                Not suprised you agree with him at all Thom. Drunk driving is ok to you and Ken as long as you don't hurt anyone. Okie dokie.

                                Maybe you can enlighten me as to what business the govt. has in telling me who I can marry in the first place. Never mind I figured it out. It's just another way for them to extort money from people.
                                Why in the world do you think I am in favor of the government telling anyone who they can and can't marry? By the way, the reason the government has in the past limited marriage isn't because they are trying to extort money. That doesn't even make sense.
                                Signature
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8851278].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                  Not suprised you agree with him at all Thom. Drunk driving is ok to you and Ken as long as you don't hurt anyone. Okie dokie.



                                  Why in the world do you think I am in favor of the government telling anyone who they can and can't marry? By the way, the reason the government has in the past limited marriage isn't because they are trying to extort money. That doesn't even make sense.
                                  I didn't say you where in favor of it. I asked if you could enlighten me as to what business the govt. has in telling me who I can marry in the first place.
                                  Do you have to buy a marriage license to get married? That's why I said they use it to extort money. Maybe I should of said they use marriage as a form of control. Either way they have no business in "allowing" you to marry.
                                  As for the drinking and driving. I'm not surprised you are against a behavior if the person isn't harming anyone or anyone's property. After all everyone who drinks automatically has an accident every time they get in their car:rolleyes: I bet your all for the public intoxication laws also, because why should we have to see a person in public who was just in a bar.
                                  Signature

                                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8852430].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                  Not suprised you agree with him at all Thom. Drunk driving is ok to you and Ken as long as you don't hurt anyone. Okie dokie.



                                  Why in the world do you think I am in favor of the government telling anyone who they can and can't marry? By the way, the reason the government has in the past limited marriage isn't because they are trying to extort money. That doesn't even make sense.

                                  Oh for God's sake. Just because it's not the government's job to control something doesn't mean someone thinks it's okay to do it.

                                  Actually - the courts had to pull a lot of real "fast ones" on us just to relegate private transportation into the realms of "privilege". It is actually a right that has been severely violated, and if the general public understood anything about the situation they'd be up in arms and demanding that the designation of driving as a "privilege" should be rescinded. That's what the Judiciary board is supposed to do. It did not do so because people don't understand their rights. What you just said is proof you don't. I was the head of my college's Judicial Review Board (was the Chief Justice) - and had to learn this crap before I could be seated.

                                  Argument by logical fallacy doesn't make you right.....just misinformed. If enough people go after the Supreme court on this they could de-seat judges who refused to rescind the action.

                                  Just because the courts have become corrupted does not mean that we have to live with the corruption. It just means we have enough people who are either uneducated or lazy enough to do nothing about the usurpation of our rights.

                                  You have committed more logical fallacies in just a few sentences than I have ever seen in one argument.

                                  Ad Hominem(from motives)
                                  Argument from Inertia
                                  Argumentum ad Baculam
                                  Affirming the consequence
                                  Appeal to Closure
                                  Appeal to Tradition
                                  Bandwagoning
                                  Begging the question
                                  Blind Loyalty
                                  Big Lie Technique
                                  E for effort
                                  Half Truth (card stacking)
                                  Just in Case

                                  If you are so thick-headed that you think your pee-pee will shrivel and fall off if you have to admit you are wrong about something - and I've seen you argue a fallacy into the ground before you will admit what you say doesn't hold water...........you need to take a course or two in logic. Your argument is so weak that it couldn't stand if it were propped up with a rope and a crane.
                                  Signature

                                  Sal
                                  When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                                  Beyond the Path

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8853630].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                    Yawn. I see any criticism of logical thinking coming from the likes of you, Ken, Seasoned, etc... as a badge of honor and wear it proudly.

                                    Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                    Oh for God's sake. Just because it's not the government's job to control something doesn't mean someone thinks it's okay to do it.

                                    Actually - the courts had to pull a lot of real "fast ones" on us just to relegate private transportation into the realms of "privilege". It is actually a right that has been severely violated, and if the general public understood anything about the situation they'd be up in arms and demanding that the designation of driving as a "privilege" should be rescinded. That's what the Judiciary board is supposed to do. It did not do so because people don't understand their rights. What you just said is proof you don't. I was the head of my college's Judicial Review Board (was the Chief Justice) - and had to learn this crap before I could be seated.

                                    Argument by logical fallacy doesn't make you right.....just misinformed. If enough people go after the Supreme court on this they could de-seat judges who refused to rescind the action.

                                    Just because the courts have become corrupted does not mean that we have to live with the corruption. It just means we have enough people who are either uneducated or lazy enough to do nothing about the usurpation of our rights.

                                    You have committed more logical fallacies in just a few sentences than I have ever seen in one argument.

                                    Ad Hominem(from motives)
                                    Argument from Inertia
                                    Argumentum ad Baculam
                                    Affirming the consequence
                                    Appeal to Closure
                                    Appeal to Tradition
                                    Bandwagoning
                                    Begging the question
                                    Blind Loyalty
                                    Big Lie Technique
                                    E for effort
                                    Half Truth (card stacking)
                                    Just in Case

                                    If you are so thick-headed that you think your pee-pee will shrivel and fall off if you have to admit you are wrong about something - and I've seen you argue a fallacy into the ground before you will admit what you say doesn't hold water...........you need to take a course or two in logic. Your argument is so weak that it couldn't stand if it were propped up with a rope and a crane.
                                    Signature
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8853692].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                      Yawn. I see any criticism of logical thinking coming from the likes of you, Ken, Seasoned, etc... as a badge of honor and wear it proudly.
                                      Again. Still. Good grief.

                                      I'm sure you have absolutely no clue about the fact your statement says more about YOU than it does about Ken, Seasoned , or myself.

                                      And........it ain't a pretty picture.
                                      Signature

                                      Sal
                                      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                                      Beyond the Path

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8853758].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                        Again. Still. Good grief.

                                        I'm sure you have absolutely no clue about the fact your statement says more about YOU than it does about Ken, Seasoned , or myself.

                                        And........it ain't a pretty picture.
                                        I was thinking that maybe I would just thank him for the compliment!

                                        Seriously though, is there some kind of anti-university or something? WEIRD!

                                        Steve
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8853969].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                                          I was thinking that maybe I would just thank him for the compliment!

                                          Seriously though, is there some kind of anti-university or something? WEIRD!

                                          Steve
                                          It's called Statism -- that blind loyalty to authority that has killed around 100 million people over the last century.
                                          Signature

                                          Sal
                                          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                                          Beyond the Path

                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8855190].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                            Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                            It's called Statism -- that blind loyalty to authority that has killed around 100 million people over the last century.
                                            WTF? Gee, you are becoming a bit unhinged here Sal.

                                            First of all, my last post was simply me replying in kind to you: You said you didn't think too highly of my logical thinking abilities and I basically said the same about about you by saying I wear any criticism of my logic skills as a badge of honor because I basically feel the same about you. For that I am not a "pretty picture"? lol What's that say about you then?

                                            Before that I just pretty much repeated what Ken and Thom both said about drunk driving. They both said that in their opinion driving drunk should not be against the law. I simply said the same thing but used the word "OK" instead of legal. Still, I was just restating their opinion. Did you even read what they said? Or was it the "Okie Dokie" term that set you off? I know, that's a bit of a rough expression for me to use in these here parts of the forum but hey, sometimes I play a bit rough and pull out an "okie dokie" or perhaps even worse.

                                            Whatever set you off you come up with a ridiculus inane list of eight logical fallicies that I supposedly commited in my 6 short sentences you quoted. Heck, three of my sentences were about marriage. In one of them I asked Thom about why he thought I was for the government saying who anyone can and can't marry. ( Thom replied and said he wasn't asking me because he thought I was in favor of this. You know what Thom? I agree with you. ) The other two sentences I wrote about marriage that you quoted were a opinion of mine stating that the reason government has limited marriage ( which I assumed was the issue we were talking about since we were talking about the constitution ) in the past isn't because of extortion reasons which really doesn't make sense because if the government limits marriage they are not making more money. See how that doesn't make sense?

                                            So, those two sentences don't have any of the logical fallacies you listed either. I already said something about the other sentences. Your list of fallacies is completely bogus in my opinion, unless you are going back in history here on the forum to the last 8 years? lol. In that case I might be guilty of a few, but I think the list I could make up on you would be way longer. But you didn't say that. You said it was just a few sentences and quoted me. In that case you come across as foolish and a bit silly.

                                            Then you post this last absurd statement about statism, saying I have blind loyalty and I guess somehow link me to the deaths of 100 million people! This is getting comical now. Can anyone see any logical fallacies in THAT statement!? Good grief. This is why I try not to get involved in these discussions here any more. It really isn't worth my time to try to have a real debate or argument with people who become so unreasonable.

                                            By the way, the posting of logical fallacies online seems to have reached some sort of epedemic level these days. It's kind of like some people have just discovered they exit or something. :/ I don't mind when someone mentions them and they are true and kind of relevant to the discussion but when someone posts a completely bogus list like you did it comes across as boring, dull, pretentious and, to again use a word Ken likes, silly. Just fyi.
                                            Signature
                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8855657].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                              Ken, let me try to explain this to you so you can understand. There are many, many things that are not mentioned in the Constitution which can be and are constitutional issues. When you say marriage and abortion are not constitutional issues that is what is called an opinion. Other people, some who have become something that is called a Supreme Court Justice ( Do a Google and you can go read about them. ) disagree with you on this. Here's the deal, your opinion on what issue is considered a constitutional issue doesn't really hold up that well against what these Supreme Court Justices think. So if they decide to take a case and make a decision on an issue that issue is by definition a constitutional issue. See how that works there?

                              By the way, thanks for the confirmation of your views on drunk driving because I don't think Thom believed me. Sorry my argument and reading skills make you sad but frankly I don't care. You can just go cry in your beer and then drive home feeling content about doing your part to fight our terrible evil government.
                              Marriage, and sometimes abortion, ARE constitutional issues. FIRST AMENDMENT! But HEY, so is church doctrine! FIRST AMENDMENT! Sorry that the idea of marriage is often a RELIGIOUS one. Even the idea of a church being forced to lease out its facilities to people wanting to do such things is abhorrent and contrary to the first amendment. Even forcing a baker to bake a cake celebrating it.

                              The idea that the government can affect church is a MORONIC ONE! The basic beliefs are supposed to be LITERALLY WRITTEN IN STONE, at least for the heretofore 2 biggest! To demand that they be changed is to say either that they are not real religions, or to demand that God himself should change them. If they are forced to change, it is the epitome of a violation of the 1st amendment.

                              If a church gets too much wrong, hopefully the congregation will just go elsewhere. What sense is there in forcing such change?

                              I wonder if they ever even ATE such cakes. I mean would YOU trust a cake made by someone you REALLY didn't know that he was FORCED to bake after a lawsuit YOU started to HARASS him? I would have simply gone elsewhere!

                              As for the supreme court justices, what does THAT have to do with anything? Most VIOLATED their oath! Sotomayor said she would decide based on FOREIGN law! and HEY, there ARE 9 of them, and at least 5 have to agree. Too bad they are basically in 2 parties and usually decide that way.

                              Steve
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8851988].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                                Marriage, and sometimes abortion, ARE constitutional issues. FIRST AMENDMENT! But HEY, so is church doctrine! FIRST AMENDMENT! Sorry that the idea of marriage is often a RELIGIOUS one. Even the idea of a church being forced to lease out its facilities to people wanting to do such things is abhorrent and contrary to the first amendment. Even forcing a baker to bake a cake celebrating it.

                                The idea that the government can affect church is a MORONIC ONE! The basic beliefs are supposed to be LITERALLY WRITTEN IN STONE, at least for the heretofore 2 biggest! To demand that they be changed is to say either that they are not real religions, or to demand that God himself should change them. If they are forced to change, it is the epitome of a violation of the 1st amendment.

                                If a church gets too much wrong, hopefully the congregation will just go elsewhere. What sense is there in forcing such change?

                                I wonder if they ever even ATE such cakes. I mean would YOU trust a cake made by someone you REALLY didn't know that he was FORCED to bake after a lawsuit YOU started to HARASS him? I would have simply gone elsewhere!

                                As for the supreme court justices, what does THAT have to do with anything? Most VIOLATED their oath! Sotomayor said she would decide based on FOREIGN law! and HEY, there ARE 9 of them, and at least 5 have to agree. Too bad they are basically in 2 parties and usually decide that way.

                                Steve
                                Steve you understand you're talking to someone who thinks the constitution is outdated and needs to be changed, right?
                                Signature

                                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8852438].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                  Steve you understand you're talking to someone who thinks the constitution is outdated and needs to be changed, right?
                                  YEP, I SURE DO!

                                  Steve
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8853474].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                  Umm, I said it was flawed when first written and needed to be changed, which it was several times. I don't see any proposed amendments that I support now. Nice try though Thom. :/
                                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                  Steve you understand you're talking to someone who thinks the constitution is outdated and needs to be changed, right?
                                  Signature
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8853680].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                    Umm, I said it was flawed when first written and needed to be changed, which it was several times. I don't see any proposed amendments that I support now. Nice try though Thom. :/
                                    Translation: It's doing what it was intended to do.
                                    Therefore because it doesn't allow the feds to restrict more of our rights it must of been a flaw when it was written:rolleyes:
                                    Signature

                                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8853901].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                              Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

                              Here's the 10th Amendment:

                              The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

                              No, it is a fact. The federal government has no business deciding matters not directly in the Constitution.
                              Nope. We went through this before. You added directly. The Supreme Court decided this a long time ago.


                              You nattering about the Supreme Court is a logical fallacy known as Appeal to Authority.
                              I know what it means Ken. I think in this case the way I used it it isn't an Appeal to Authority. It's stating that the Supreme Court picks what issues are brought before them so when they do they become constitutional issues. That was just stating a fact. Actually, I think Thom described it pretty well when he said what he did about marriage becoming a constitutional issue in certain situations. In the caseof marriage equality it can be seen as a federal issue because if a state denies one section of the adult population something that others get it is a discrimination and an equal rights issue. Another example is the 1967 Supreme Court decision in the Loving VS Virginia when the court decided to intervene and make marriage between races legal in all states. Of course this was a federal issue because civil rights were being denied. It's absolutely a constitutional issue in certain circumstances.

                              When I was a kid, we had a name for people who blindly submitted to the appearance of authority.
                              Good for you. OK. When I was a kid we had names for people who kept saying things that weren't really true.

                              I will remind you once again that the Supreme Court is not empowered to make law.
                              I agree.
                              Signature
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8855748].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                            Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

                            As long as I am presenting no threat to anyone, I have the right to drive where I please. I'm sorry, Tim, I don't believe that the police have the right to violate my 4th and 5th Amendment rights on a whim. That's why drunk driving laws are stupid. Laws against driving erratically are fine. Laws demanding searches without warrants and mandatory self-incrimination are not. Why not make laws against driving stupid? Police could stop you and force you to take an IQ test if they think you have a vacant look about you, or worse yet, statist tendencies.

                            No, the constitution does not mention drunk driving. Thus it is a matter for the states, as are marriage and abortion.

                            I know this is difficult for you, but states cannot make laws in direct conflict with the Bill of Rights.

                            SCOTUS, too, is bound by the constitution, as is the method for amending the constitution. The courts cannot make or amend laws, though you wouldn't know it by their recent actions.

                            It saddens me to see your lack of reading skills, abject worship of the state and clumsy attempts at argument.

                            It really does.
                            Drunk driving was never even really called drunk driving. A popular term is DUI, driving under the influence. The original intent/purpose was to catch erratic drivers, and use the test to confirm they are impaired.

                            BUT, like the fears of DNA and minority report, they decided that a level of alcohol in the blood caused impairment, and decided to test in advance for it.

                            In most states you HAVE to submit to a test with whatever method the officer gives you, REGARDLESS OF REASON, or you will have your license SUSPENDED!

                            Steve
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8851955].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Midnight Oil
                      Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                      If you've got a better way, I'd be delighted to hear how it would work.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8850139].message }}
                      • Originally Posted by Midnight Oil View Post

                        You realize that under this hypothetical government, murder, rape, and theft would all be legal, don't you?

                        You and Thom are welcome to it, but I'll take a pass, thanks.
                        Signature

                        Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                        _______________________________________________
                        "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8850352].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                          Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                          You realize that under this hypothetical government, murder, rape, and theft would all be legal, don't you?

                          You and Thom are welcome to it, but I'll take a pass, thanks.
                          You realize the video was meant as a joke, right?
                          Apparently you're not familiar with Ron Swanson.
                          Signature

                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8850357].message }}
                          • Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                            You realize the video was meant as a joke, right?
                            Apparently you're not familiar with Ron Swanson.
                            I knew the video was meant as a joke, but I didn't know whether MO was advancing it as a serious idea.

                            And I know who Ron Swanson is. He works with Hillary Clinton, right?

                            Signature

                            Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                            _______________________________________________
                            "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8850503].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                              Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                              I knew the video was meant as a joke, but I didn't know whether MO was advancing it as a serious idea.

                              And I know who Ron Swanson is. He works with Hillary Clinton, right?

                              Sarah Palin, Tina Fey on SNL - YouTube
                              Right, whatever you say:rolleyes:
                              Signature

                              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                              Getting old ain't for sissy's
                              As you are I was, as I am you will be
                              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8850576].message }}
                              • Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                Right, whatever you say:rolleyes:
                                It seems that my humor is totally lost on you, Thom. That's okay; I'll just be absolutely serious and literal whenever I reply to any of your posts in the future.

                                Peace, bro.
                                Signature

                                Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                                _______________________________________________
                                "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8853451].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                  Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                                  It seems that my humor is totally lost on you, Thom. That's okay; I'll just be absolutely serious and literal whenever I reply to any of your posts in the future.

                                  Peace, bro.
                                  Well it seems M.O.'s humor and my liking it was lost on you also so I guess we're even.
                                  That's the joy of talking online, it sometimes can be hard to tell when someone is trying a little humor.
                                  No harm done.
                                  Signature

                                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8853529].message }}
                                  • Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                    Well it seems M.O.'s humor and my liking it was lost on you also so I guess we're even.
                                    That's the joy of talking online, it sometimes can be hard to tell when someone is trying a little humor.
                                    No harm done.
                                    Great. So, if we all can get back on the thread topic , I had hoped to mention earlier that I agree with your suggestions about educating people better so that they are less likely to make decisions that will lead to poverty.

                                    Unfortunately, all those ideas put together would take only a very small bite out of a very large problem.
                                    Signature

                                    Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                                    _______________________________________________
                                    "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8856101].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                      Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                                      Great. So, if we all can get back on the thread topic , I had hoped to mention earlier that I agree with your suggestions about educating people better so that they are less likely to make decisions that will lead to poverty.

                                      Unfortunately, all those ideas put together would take only a very small bite out of a very large problem.
                                      True, even when they were taught you still had poverty.
                                      But at least you would be giving students an education they could use in the real world if they choose to do so.
                                      I'd rather see a series of small bites that work then a big one that doesn't. Remember you build a building one brick at a time and every brick is as important as the other bricks.
                                      Signature

                                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8856328].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                        Hopeless, here's what our current education system is doing.
                                        I think we'll see more kids dropping out and living in poverty because of this.
                                        108 steps required to do a basic division problem in 4th grade.
                                        Arkansas mom destroys Common Core in four powerful minutes - BizPac Review
                                        Signature

                                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8856360].message }}
                                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                          ..."a constitution, intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be...

                                          ...adapted to the various crisis of human affairs"
                                          When the Constitution was written a way to amend it was built in.
                                          The authors knew it wasn't all inclusive or perfect which is why we have amendments.
                                          To save you looking it up, to amend the Constitution first Congress has to pass the amendment then 75% of the states need to ratify it.
                                          Also the Constitution has two main roles. 1. To protect the rights of the individual over the will of the majority and 2. to limit the role of the Federal Govt.
                                          Those also happen to be two of the reasons "liberals" think it's flawed.
                                          Signature

                                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8856448].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                            2. to limit the role of the Federal Govt.
                                            Those also happen to be two of the reasons "liberals" think it's flawed.
                                            One of the biggest myths about the constitution going. It just isn't true. One of the main reasons for the constitution was actually just the opposite, that the Articles of Confederation didn't give the national government enough power. The Constitution clearly gave more powers to the national government than the A of C.

                                            "The fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it." ~ Alexander Hamilton 1780

                                            "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." ~ James Madison 1787

                                            "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." ~ George Washington

                                            "What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes; and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." ~ John Jay

                                            If a main reason for the constitution was to limit the federal government why on earth did they grant so much power to Congress?
                                            Signature
                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8858654].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                              One of the biggest myths about the constitution going. It just isn't true. One of the main reasons for the constitution was actually just the opposite, that the Articles of Confederation didn't give the national government enough power. The Constitution clearly gave more powers to the national government than the A of C.

                                              "The fundamental defect [in the Articles of Confederation] is a want of power in Congress. It is hardly worth while to show in what this consists, as it seems to be universally acknowledged, or to point out how it has happened, as the only question is how to remedy it." ~ Alexander Hamilton 1780

                                              "The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity." ~ James Madison 1787

                                              "I do not conceive we can exist long as a nation, without having lodged somewhere a power which will pervade the whole Union in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the different state governments extends over the several States." ~ George Washington

                                              "What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes; and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt." ~ John Jay

                                              If a main reason for the constitution was to limit the federal government why on earth did they grant so much power to Congress?
                                              So posting opinions instead of facts proves you're right?
                                              Signature

                                              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                              Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                              As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8858765].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                                What have you posted Thom? Your opinion. I would rather post the opinion of those who actually wrote the Constitution since you brought up what was their intent. :/

                                                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                                So posting opinions instead of facts proves you're right?
                                                Signature
                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8858786].message }}
                                                • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                                  What have you posted Thom? Your opinion. I would rather post the opinion of those who actually wrote the Constitution since you brought up what was their intent. :/
                                                  They where Federalist who wanted an all incompassing federal govt. They are also the reason we have a bill of rights so that the people and states had protection from them.
                                                  Signature

                                                  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                                  Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                                  As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                                  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8858819].message }}
                                                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                                    Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                                    They where Federalist who wanted an all incompassing federal govt.
                                                    All encompassing? Nope. But they did believe in a strong national government and it seems they won much of the debate in writing the constitution.

                                                    They are also the reason we have a bill of rights so that the people and states had protection from them.
                                                    We have a bill of rights to protect us from the federalists?
                                                    Signature
                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8858867].message }}
                                                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                                      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                                      All encompassing? Nope. But they did believe in a strong national government and it seems they won much of the debate in writing the constitution.



                                                      We have a bill of rights to protect us from the federalists?
                                                      In the beginning yes.
                                                      The fear was the Constitution as originally written would give the federal govt. to much power. The Federalist believed the federal govt. should be all encompassing. The argument was if they (federalist) really cared about individual rights they would of been written into the Constitution.
                                                      In the ratification debate, Anti-Federalists opposed to the Constitution, complained that the new system threatened liberties, and suggested that if the delegates had truly cared about protecting individual rights, they would have included provisions that accomplished that.The Bill of Rights: Its History and its Significance
                                                      Signature

                                                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8858919].message }}
                                                      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                                        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                                        In the beginning yes.
                                                        The fear was the Constitution as originally written would give the federal govt. to much power. The Federalist believed the federal govt. should be all encompassing. The argument was if they (federalist) really cared about individual rights they would of been written into the Constitution.
                                                        Well, it seems what we got was a stronger federal government and a bill of rights. I agree a main part of the constitution is the rights it gives to the citizens. That's why I didn't object to your #1 of your post listing the "two main roles" of the Constitution. The 2nd one is the one that is wrong imo since the Constitution increased the powers of the federal government.
                                                        Signature
                                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8858958].message }}
                                                        • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                                                          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                                          Well, it seems what we got was a stronger federal government and a bill of rights. I agree a main part of the constitution is the rights it gives to the citizens. That's why I didn't object to your #1 of your post listing the "two main roles" of the Constitution. The 2nd one is the one that is wrong imo since the Constitution increased the powers of the federal government.
                                                          I have to admit - I am not someone who studied the constitution and have only an elementary understanding. As a result, I am enjoying this part of the thread.

                                                          In my recent research, it seems to me that your statement about increasing federal power, while correct, is only part of the answer. I found this interesting:

                                                          The Constitution laid out the framework for the new United States government. It reconciled the differences between the states on the subject of representation, and represented, ultimately, a balance between the delegates' knowledge that the national government had to be strengthened and their fear of despotism and tyranny. Congress was granted the power to lay and collect taxes, to regulate interstate commerce, and to conduct diplomacy as the single voice of the people in international affairs. States were thus disallowed to coin money and tax interstate commerce, and the national government had the power to invoke military action against the states. The Constitution declared all acts and treaties made by Congress to be binding on the states.

                                                          The Constitution set forth a government composed of 3 branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch was given certain powers over the others to ensure that no one branch usurped a dangerous amount of power. This system, known as checks and balances, was the cornerstone of the new framework of government. The system of checks and balances represented the solution to the problem of how to empower the central government, yet protect against corruption and despotism.

                                                          I think I'll go read some more. I feel like I'm back in high school... lol.
                                                          Signature

                                                          Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8859018].message }}
                                                          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                                            Yes, it's really a fascinating document and history Mike. Here's a link I saved a while ago to a really well done detailed review of a book about the history of the debate that went on at the time in the creation of the Constitution. I think you will like it. I love history and this book sounds like a great read.

                                                            http://www.harvardlawreview.org/medi...25_klarman.pdf

                                                            Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                                                            I have to admit - I am not someone who studied the constitution and have only an elementary understanding. As a result, I am enjoying this part of the thread.

                                                            In my recent research, it seems to me that your statement about increasing federal power, while correct, is only part of the answer. I found this interesting:

                                                            The Constitution laid out the framework for the new United States government. It reconciled the differences between the states on the subject of representation, and represented, ultimately, a balance between the delegates' knowledge that the national government had to be strengthened and their fear of despotism and tyranny. Congress was granted the power to lay and collect taxes, to regulate interstate commerce, and to conduct diplomacy as the single voice of the people in international affairs. States were thus disallowed to coin money and tax interstate commerce, and the national government had the power to invoke military action against the states. The Constitution declared all acts and treaties made by Congress to be binding on the states.

                                                            The Constitution set forth a government composed of 3 branches: the legislative, executive, and judicial. Each branch was given certain powers over the others to ensure that no one branch usurped a dangerous amount of power. This system, known as checks and balances, was the cornerstone of the new framework of government. The system of checks and balances represented the solution to the problem of how to empower the central government, yet protect against corruption and despotism.

                                                            I think I'll go read some more. I feel like I'm back in high school... lol.
                                                            Signature
                                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8859222].message }}
                                                        • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                                          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                                          Well, it seems what we got was a stronger federal government and a bill of rights. I agree a main part of the constitution is the rights it gives to the citizens. That's why I didn't object to your #1 of your post listing the "two main roles" of the Constitution. The 2nd one is the one that is wrong imo since the Constitution increased the powers of the federal government.
                                                          Tim you do realize that Congress is made up of state representatives? At least that was the original idea.
                                                          Now it's made up of people who are more loyal to their parties then to the states they represent.
                                                          How does the Constitution increase the powers of the federal govt.? It defines what powers the feds have.
                                                          The Constitution as written defines how STATE representatives to Congress are elected, how many there should be, and the three branches of govt.and how the president is elected, what powers he has, etc. It also defined the role of the federal govt. and created a system of checks and balances.
                                                          How exactly did it increase the powers of something that didn't exist?
                                                          Signature

                                                          Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                                          Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                                          As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                                          You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8859169].message }}
                                                          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                                            Not sure of your point Thom. Yep, the federal government is made up of state reps.

                                                            The federal government had powers before the Constitution. They were just very limted. Washington said the main problem with the new government under the A of C was "no money".

                                                            Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                                            Tim you do realize that Congress is made up of state representatives? At least that was the original idea.
                                                            Now it's made up of people who are more loyal to their parties then to the states they represent.
                                                            How does the Constitution increase the powers of the federal govt.? It defines what powers the feds have.
                                                            The Constitution as written defines how STATE representatives to Congress are elected, how many there should be, and the three branches of govt.and how the president is elected, what powers he has, etc. It also defined the role of the federal govt. and created a system of checks and balances.
                                                            How exactly did it increase the powers of something that didn't exist?
                                                            Signature
                                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8859285].message }}
                                            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                              Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

                                              It sure as hell does not grant unlimited power to the federal government. It spells out what the government can and cannot do.
                                              Of course it doesn't grant unlimted power, but as I clearly point out one of the main reasons the founders wanted to come together to write the constitution was because the A of C didn't grant the federal government enough power in their opinion. Why is that hard for you to understand?
                                              Signature
                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8858795].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                                Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

                                                No, what's hard for me to understand is why you're trying to portray the Constitution as anything but a check on the power of the federal government.

                                                Please elucidate.
                                                Well, you can say it has checks and balances on the federal government in it and I'm glad it does. However, to say it isn't anything more than that is hard for me too understand. I'm pointing out that the main reason the Constitution was written to replace the A of C was to give the federal government more power than what it had in the A of C.

                                                To say the main role was to limit the federal government's role isn't really accurate. You could turn it around and say "The main role of the Constitution was to 'limit the role of' the State Governments" and that is actually more accurate.
                                                Signature
                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8859254].message }}
                                        • Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                          Hopeless, here's what our current education system is doing.
                                          I think we'll see more kids dropping out and living in poverty because of this.
                                          108 steps required to do a basic division problem in 4th grade.
                                          Arkansas mom destroys Common Core in four powerful minutes - BizPac Review
                                          You're preaching to the choir here, Thom. The educational system is dysfunctional in the extreme. However, fixing it and fixing poverty are fundamentally two separate undertakings.
                                          Signature

                                          Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                                          _______________________________________________
                                          "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8856449].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                            Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                                            You're preaching to the choir here, Thom. The educational system is dysfunctional in the extreme. However, fixing it and fixing poverty are fundamentally two separate undertakings.
                                            If you fix the education system, you can give kids the tools they need to get out of poverty.
                                            Encourage kids to use their imagination in school instead of suspending them for it.
                                            For years now our education system has been about teaching kids to obey and conform (what common core is basically about).
                                            Instead teach kids to question and be themselves.
                                            What the education is doing is teaching kids that unless they can follow rules and follow orders they won't amount to anything.
                                            Fixing the education system is a part of fixing poverty.
                                            Signature

                                            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                            Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                            As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8856481].message }}
                                            • Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                              If you fix the education system, you can give kids the tools they need to get out of poverty.
                                              Encourage kids to use their imagination in school instead of suspending them for it.
                                              For years now our education system has been about teaching kids to obey and conform (what common core is basically about).
                                              Instead teach kids to question and be themselves.
                                              What the education is doing is teaching kids that unless they can follow rules and follow orders they won't amount to anything.
                                              Fixing the education system is a part of fixing poverty.
                                              Undeniably: it will cut down on the number of young people we release onto society who are poorly equipped to support themselves.

                                              Of course, that's still only a part of the problem (half, if you're really generous). The rest of the problem is getting those already trapped in the cycle of poverty out of it.
                                              Signature

                                              Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                                              _______________________________________________
                                              "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8856708].message }}
                                              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                                Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                                                Undeniably: it will cut down on the number of young people we release onto society who are poorly equipped to support themselves.

                                                Of course, that's still only a part of the problem (half, if you're really generous). The rest of the problem is getting those already trapped in the cycle of poverty out of it.
                                                Yep I know it's only part.
                                                Part of the problem with the people already trap in the cycle is the govt. programs that keep them trapped.
                                                Food stamps for example.
                                                Last year the USDA was bragging about having more people on food stamps then ever before. My thought was why not also teach them how to grow some of their own food. You can convert old refrigerators into hydroponic units among other things so there is really no excuse for anyone not growing at least some of their food. You could also put the people on welfare to work building those units, teaching them a trade.
                                                Another problem with our welfare system is it penalizes a person for trying to better themselves. As soon as you start improving your live, your benefits are cut usually long before you are ready to take care of yourself.
                                                I lost my job 4 years ago. I don't really do anything online to make money (which is another good option for people). What I do is collect bottles for bottle return, scrap metal and do work for other old folks who can't afford a regular contractor. In the summer I mow some lawns and do other outside jobs foe people. The deal is I'll do the work if they have the mower. In the winter I do some shoveling and interior work like painting. I charge very little so they can afford it and I can still pay my bills.
                                                Some months money is tight, some months it isn't. But I depend on myself and if I have a bad month it's on me. Technically I live in poverty. But I'm happy with my life, I have what I need, and I'm not dependent on anyone.
                                                So there are ways out there that people can get themselves out of poverty it just takes some work and excepting that you are responsible for yourself.
                                                If all else fails a person can always become a politician. Heck the current President went from a community organizer to a millionaire just by being elected to the Senate
                                                Signature

                                                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8856867].message }}
                                                • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                                                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                                  When the Constitution was written a way to amend it was built in.
                                                  The authors knew it wasn't all inclusive or perfect which is why we have amendments.
                                                  To save you looking it up, to amend the Constitution first Congress has to pass the amendment then 75% of the states need to ratify it.
                                                  Also the Constitution has two main roles. 1. To protect the rights of the individual over the will of the majority and 2. to limit the role of the Federal Govt.
                                                  Those also happen to be two of the reasons "liberals" think it's flawed.
                                                  So says Joe Pesci:


                                                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                                  Yep I know it's only part.
                                                  Part of the problem with the people already trap in the cycle is the govt. programs that keep them trapped.
                                                  Food stamps for example.
                                                  Last year the USDA was bragging about having more people on food stamps then ever before. My thought was why not also teach them how to grow some of their own food. You can convert old refrigerators into hydroponic units among other things so there is really no excuse for anyone not growing at least some of their food. You could also put the people on welfare to work building those units, teaching them a trade.
                                                  Another problem with our welfare system is it penalizes a person for trying to better themselves. As soon as you start improving your live, your benefits are cut usually long before you are ready to take care of yourself.
                                                  I lost my job 4 years ago. I don't really do anything online to make money (which is another good option for people). What I do is collect bottles for bottle return, scrap metal and do work for other old folks who can't afford a regular contractor. In the summer I mow some lawns and do other outside jobs foe people. The deal is I'll do the work if they have the mower. In the winter I do some shoveling and interior work like painting. I charge very little so they can afford it and I can still pay my bills.
                                                  Some months money is tight, some months it isn't. But I depend on myself and if I have a bad month it's on me. Technically I live in poverty. But I'm happy with my life, I have what I need, and I'm not dependent on anyone.
                                                  So there are ways out there that people can get themselves out of poverty it just takes some work and excepting that you are responsible for yourself.
                                                  If all else fails a person can always become a politician. Heck the current President went from a community organizer to a millionaire just by being elected to the Senate
                                                  Nice idea, but a good portion of those trapped people have no interest in finding ways to break this cycle. Many have more kids, or find other ways to bury themselves further in it.

                                                  The idea of depending on yourself is passe among a growing mindset...
                                                  Signature

                                                  Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8856913].message }}
                                                  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                                    Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio View Post

                                                    So says Joe Pesci:

                                                    Joe Pesci 's counterstrike - YouTube



                                                    Nice idea, but a good portion of those trapped people have no interest in finding ways to break this cycle. Many have more kids, or find other ways to bury themselves further in it.

                                                    The idea of depending on yourself is passe among a growing mindset...
                                                    That's part of the built in cycle though, Mike. People who have never been independent don't understand it for the most part. If given the incentive to be independent, even if just temporarily so they could see what it was about, most people would choose to continue to do so.

                                                    You slap people down often enough when they are trying to do something, sooner or later they stop trying to do anything. That's how our welfare system works.
                                                    Signature

                                                    Sal
                                                    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                                                    Beyond the Path

                                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8857061].message }}
                                          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                            Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                            Again. Still. Good grief.

                                            I'm sure you have absolutely no clue about the fact your statement says more about YOU than it does about Ken, Seasoned , or myself.

                                            And........it ain't a pretty picture.
                                            Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

                                            You're preaching to the choir here, Thom. The educational system is dysfunctional in the extreme. However, fixing it and fixing poverty are fundamentally two separate undertakings.
                                            NOT REALLY! One reason the poor are poor is BAD EDUCATION! One reason for inflation is RIDICULOUS expenses because of BAD EDUCATION! Grades 1-12 are supposed to teach you COMMON SENSE, and a COMMUNITY STANDARD EDUCATION and allow you to be able to compete to a certain level. SO many jobs today require college. WHY? It isn't like they are skilled jobs! WHY? It isn't like you learn ANYTHING special in college, because the field of study often DOESN'T matter. ********WHY********? Because 1-12 have been dumbed down SO much, that they hope that you will learn it by the time you get an associates or bachelors degree. NOW, they are really dumbing down COLLEGE!

                                            Common core is a JOKE! DON'T worry! it will get you college ready nd able to compete at the international level! HOW? EASY! THEY are getting dumbed down TOO!

                                            Steve
                                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8856828].message }}
                                      • Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                        True, even when they were taught you still had poverty.
                                        But at least you would be giving students an education they could use in the real world if they choose to do so.
                                        I'd rather see a series of small bites that work then a big one that doesn't. Remember you build a building one brick at a time and every brick is as important as the other bricks.
                                        It's not like we have to choose between one or the other, you realize.

                                        (Nor does it make sense to conclude that a big bite couldn't possibly work just because it's big.)
                                        Signature

                                        Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
                                        _______________________________________________
                                        "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8856443].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Claude Whitacre
          Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

          "The" cause? I hope you're not implying that only one thing causes poverty.

          What's so disappointing, though, is that so many of these supposedly smart people identifying the cause(s) never even hint at proposing any solutions.
          Actually, I think I do have the solution. But it isn't anything we do for them. It's what they do for themselves.

          Sure there are people that just can't take care of themselves. The mentally challenged, the crippled, maybe people who can't walk.

          The rest? It takes no effort to offer a service that you get paid for. Libraries are free. You can learn anything you want. Online, you can find lists of hundreds of small businesses you can start in less than a day....for no money.

          The reality is that we are not created equally. There will always be people that produce more than they consume, and they will get wealthier. And there will always be people that consume more than they produce, and they will always be poor.

          Sorry. But if you want to permanently cure poverty? Even if you divided all the money in the world evenly, and gave everyone the same amount...in 5 years, we would be back to where we are now.

          You can't cure stupidity. And you can be temporarily poor through no fault of your own. But if you are still poor when you are 50? That's a choice.

          You want to devote your life, trying to change human nature? Good luck.

          There will always be poor people. My choice is that I won't be one of them.

          Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

          Personal responsibility by itself will never create enough jobs that pay a living wage, no matter how much you may want it to. Not everyone has the imagination, talent, and resources to become a successful entrepreneur.

          (Not to mention those who are too disabled to work, who are of course a minority, but don't deserve to be neglected for that reason.)
          Like I said above, some people cannot take care of themselves.

          Entrepreneur? 150 years ago, 90% of the USA was self employed. You don't need imagination to clean homes, offices, wash windows, cut lawns, walk pets, detail cars, deliver pizzas, be a waiter or waitress...

          Most people that own small businesses are really just employed by themselves, doing the job. They have no skills or imagination more than anyone else. You mean "Rich Entrepreneurs", and I agree.... Not everyone can be rich. We all have limitations, and none are equal. But we can almost all contribute. And that contribution pays well.

          Take Dan Riffle, for example. He's a dullard, short, ugly, slobbers when he talks...God knows what he looks like when he eats....

          And he's doing quite well for himself and his family.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8833361].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            As for those who aren't creative, talented, or intelligent, the world will always need ditch diggers. Sure, it seems callous from a microeconomic standpoint, but perfectly reasonable from a macro view.
            In that video I posted of Mike Rowe he talks about all sorts of jobs out there right now. They are considered "blue collar" jobs and they are going unfilled. They do require some skill like wielding or pipe fitting, but they are skills that can be learned sometimes on the job.
            A friend of mine has a son who went to college for wielding. He makes around $20 an hour working for a local tent company (think big tents). He can go anywhere in the country and find work.
            In my younger days whenever I was desperate I would look for a manual labor job and be working in no time. I've dug trenches here in New York for foundations and help install a sewer line in Tampa. Only qualification was a willingness to work hard.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8833408].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Personal responsibility encompasses much more than "creating jobs." First off, why in the hell does everyone want a job? Aren't you much better off working for yourself?

              Personal responsibility means taking care of those less fortunate according to your means, teaching what you know to help others, giving people a leg up.
              Even when I had a job I considered it working for myself.
              Each job was a either to gain experience with certain skills or learn a new skill, never just to have a job.
              While in college studying plant science I decided I wanted to start a small landscaping business. The first thing I did when I left college was go to work for one.
              With what I learned at that company I was able to start a small business and avoid a lot of mistakes. When the business started to get to big for my liking I turned it over to a friend who still has it almost 20 years later. I still work with him from time to time mainly because I still love that type of work, and he still gives friends a job when they need to work.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8833440].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MikeAmbrosio
                Originally Posted by Ken_Caudill View Post

                I worked one summer landscaping for the university I attended. Best job I ever had.

                I agree with you. There's certainly no shame in having a job, but the real reason for getting one is to use it as a jumping board for your own enterprise.
                Funny - it took me a little over 25 years to figure that out. I'll never be an "employee" again. But all those years of being one gave me the confidence to go out on my own.
                Signature

                Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8833884].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

              In that video I posted of Mike Rowe he talks about all sorts of jobs out there right now. They are considered "blue collar" jobs and they are going unfilled. They do require some skill like wielding or pipe fitting, but they are skills that can be learned sometimes on the job.
              A friend of mine has a son who went to college for wielding. He makes around $20 an hour working for a local tent company (think big tents). He can go anywhere in the country and find work.
              In my younger days whenever I was desperate I would look for a manual labor job and be working in no time. I've dug trenches here in New York for foundations and help install a sewer line in Tampa. Only qualification was a willingness to work hard.
              HECK YEAH! They have apprentices that eventually become fully skilled and have their OWN apprentices. The apprentices often get a low wage that is STILL much higher than the minimum, and work besides people that make several TIMES what they do doing mostly the same thing. Apparently, the guy that handles my HVAC and plumbing needs has a bill rate of like $169/hour! Even if he got the percentage I do now, that is like $56/hour That would be like $116,480/year as a BLUE collar employee! The way he describes his home and all, I guess he is well paid, and he seems happy. Of course, I hire him ONLY because he is a nice guy that knows what he is doing.

              White collar IS over rated. White collar basically means you are less likely to get your hands dirty, and generally don't do manual labor. Whether white collar or blue collar, there are individuals making little or a lot.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8833441].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

          "The" cause? I hope you're not implying that only one thing causes poverty.

          What's so disappointing, though, is that so many of these supposedly smart people identifying the cause(s) never even hint at proposing any solutions.
          I, as perhaps millions now living(maybe billions over history), HAVE proposed solutions. It is like losing fat! Losing fat is usually achieved by TWO simple processes! That is it, only TWO! So WHY are there SO many fat people? SIMPLE! Almost 100% violate those two things! So GO AHEAD! Sleep all day and eat all you want and stay FAT! HEY! It sounds a lot like the poverty problem!

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8833367].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Sumit Menon
    Firstly, America has very high standards of poverty. Even if you adjust for every possible standard of living indicator there is, America still would have very high standards. I'd rather be poor in America than quite well off in Burundi. The problem of defining poverty so, for my lack of a decent vocabulary, loosely is that it brings forth the argument of government actively 'redistributing' the wealth to 'cure' it. You made up the disease and you set out to cure it. It is hypocritical that wealthy countries redistribute the wealth amongst themselves- under some arbitrary standards of poverty- while a larger population elsewhere is starving.

    Secondly, 40 million Americans are NOT in poverty. Poor is what they would be, if the government wasn't doing anything about it. Some people might slip out of the system, but if you are telling me that 40 million people aren't getting the benefits of the government's social programs then you should really consider going back to the drawing board.

    Thirdly, a lot of American problems stem from misplaced policy and I'm not talking at the incentive or implementation level. Just plain bad policy. For example -

    1. You can buy fast food on food stamps. What would you rather buy with free money- a packet of Cheetos or carrots? Fast food companies must be lobbying for this.

    2. The ETIC does nothing to alleviate poverty. I've read an ex-Walmart manager saying that the week ETIC goes out, sales go up by 20%. Big retail chains must essentially get back the money they pay in taxes.

    3. You have minimum wage laws, when jobs are moving OUT of your country. A small number of people are working minimum wage jobs and to help them, you are denying jobs to many young people, who could then themselves end up in the welfare cycle. To add to this, you take in a large number of illegal immigrants, give them amnesty and then deny them any way to work a job at their skill level, consequently, putting them on welfare too. (And then you fly in the families of those immigrants on a T1 visa even when there was no human trafficking in their home country, but I am going off the point.)

    4. You have a national health insurance policy that is unsustainable in the long term, and that put more people out of insurance than it covered since the short span it has been implemented.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8832747].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      So you want to eliminate the minimum wage to solve poverty in the US? Hmmm. That puts you in company with a former Congresswoman Sumit:

      "Literally, if we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." ~ Michelle Bachmann

      By the way, your #4 is wrong.

      ObamaCare's insurance cancellation problem isn't that big of a problem - The Week

      Originally Posted by Sumit Menon View Post

      3. You have minimum wage laws, when jobs are moving OUT of your country. A small number of people are working minimum wage jobs and to help them, you are denying jobs to many young people, who could then themselves end up in the welfare cycle. To add to this, you take in a large number of illegal immigrants, give them amnesty and then deny them any way to work a job at their skill level, consequently, putting them on welfare too. (And then you fly in the families of those immigrants on a T1 visa even when there was no human trafficking in their home country, but I am going off the point.)

      4. You have a national health insurance policy that is unsustainable in the long term, and that put more people out of insurance than it covered since the short span it has been implemented.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8833045].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        So you want to eliminate the minimum wage to solve poverty in the US? Hmmm. That puts you in company with a former Congresswoman Sumit:

        "Literally, if we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." ~ Michelle Bachmann

        By the way, your #4 is wrong.

        ObamaCare's insurance cancellation problem isn't that big of a problem - The Week
        The proof is in the pudding Tim.
        So far the facts are on Sumits side here.
        Wait till the mandates that where pushed back until after the 2014 election kick in.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8833127].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          The proof is in the pudding Tim.
          So far the facts are on Sumits side here.
          Wait till the mandates that where pushed back until after the 2014 election kick in.
          HECK YEAH! A HUGE group of people are saying that the law should be executed ACCORDING TO THE LAW. If THAT happens, MILLIONS more will be against it.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8833390].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Midnight Oil
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        You seem much more confident than your source(s).

        The article title claims it "isn't that big of a problem" and concludes with "it's still way to early to tell."

        The article is propped up with multiple shoulds, as is the report that it's built upon.

        For example, "About half of those who were in line to lose their coverage should be able to keep their existing plans . . ."

        Even at "about half," it's still far from "If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period."
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8833223].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Sumit Menon
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        So you want to eliminate the minimum wage to solve poverty in the US? Hmmm. That puts you in company with a former Congresswoman Sumit:

        "Literally, if we took away the minimum wage -- if conceivably it was gone -- we could potentially virtually wipe out unemployment completely because we would be able to offer jobs at whatever level." ~ Michelle Bachmann

        By the way, your #4 is wrong.

        ObamaCare's insurance cancellation problem isn't that big of a problem - The Week
        I'm not saying minimum wage would 'wipe out' poverty. I'm saying...



        When you set the minimum wage above the equilibrium point, you are causing unemployment as shown in grey.

        Willing, able-bodied people are not able to find work and instead they are put into the system. They would have earned a raise in 1-12 months[1], but, shoot, they don't have work.

        Just over 1% of Americans (and 2% of workers) hold a minimum wage job and this includes people working for less than the minimum wage like full time students and people with disability.[2]

        50% workers are between the ages of 16-24 and it is unlikely that they have a family to support.[2]

        Over 63% of people who work minimum wage jobs are second or third earners in their families and their family incomes are twice above the poverty line.[3]

        Tell me again, why you think minimum wage is helping the case against poverty.


        As for #4, I am not wrong. I made sure I worded it correctly. Currently, as it stands, more people have lost insurance than those who have signed up. The tweak is only for a year (after the mid-term elections. How convenient!) and thus a temporary thing (unless he was talking about two different tweaks in the article, in which case I stand corrected). It more of a stunt to rid of bad publicity than a fix.

        -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        [1] - "Over the 23 years of data studied in the report, nearly two-thirds of minimum wage employees who continue employment are earning more than the minimum wage within 1-12 months." - http://epionline.org/studies/macpherson_06-2004.pdf (pg. 3)

        [2]- Rob Portman says 'about 2 percent of Americans get paid the minimum wage' | PolitiFact

        [3] - http://epionline.org/downloads/Sabia..._SEJ_Jan10.PDF (pg. 593)
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8836833].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          Originally Posted by Sumit Menon View Post

          I'm not saying minimum wage would 'wipe out' poverty. I'm saying...When you set the minimum wage above the equilibrium point, you are causing unemployment as shown in grey.
          Are you saying that or are you just cut and pasting? Anyways, if you are saying we should have a minimum wage but we should 'try to keep it close to' [<-edit] some sort of "equilibrium point", then I say fine. Makes sense. If you are saying we shouldn't even have a a minimum wage I have to say that puts you right there with Michele Bachmann.



          As for #4, I am not wrong. I made sure I worded it correctly. Currently, as it stands, more people have lost insurance than those who have signed up. The tweak is only for a year (after the mid-term elections. How convenient!) and thus a temporary thing (unless he was talking about two different tweaks in the article, in which case I stand corrected). It more of a stunt to rid of bad publicity than a fix.
          Nope. You made a statement as if it was a fact and the fact is we don't really know yet. That article says the number may end up being as low as 10,000. You believe the 4 million number.
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8836990].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Sumit Menon
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Are you saying that or are you just cut and pasting? Anyways, if you are saying we should have a minimum wage but we should just stay below some sort of "equilibrium point", then I say fine. Makes sense. If you are saying we shouldn't even have a a minimum wage I have to say that puts you right there with Michele Bachmann.
            I'm all for having a minimum wage below the equilibrium point because its the same as having no minimum wage. If the minimum wage were below the equilibrium point, then everyone would be paid the wage at the equilibrium point and there would be no need for artificially enforcing a wage through legislation. So okay, yes I meant that- if that gets you through your day.

            The 'cut and pasting' I did, it's called citation and all scientists and pretty much everyone in the academic community do it. I think I'm in good company. And what I did 'cut and paste' were facts inferred through ACTUAL research, and all you had was an ad-hominem attack using a politician you don't like.

            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Nope. You made a statement as if it was a fact and the fact is we don't really know yet. That article says the number may end up being as low as 10,000. You believe the 4 million number.

            Let me quote me,
            "You have a national health insurance policy that is unsustainable in the long term, and that put more people out of insurance than it covered since the short span it has been implemented."


            I said that the policy was unsustainable in the long term, which is an opinion (which I don't try to pass off as a fact), and threw most people out of insurance than it helped 'since the short span it has been implemented', which is a fact (for all we know until now).

            The article says that it puts 1.4 million people into Medicaid (which btw, is not the insurance they signed up for). It says that people who can't get insured don't need to pay the penalty and for a year they can keep their old plan- neither of these being the terms when they signed up for the insurance. Okay, maybe I should change my statement a little...

            "You have a national health insurance policy that is unsustainable in the long term, and that put more people out of their insurance than it covered since the short span it has been implemented."


            ... but I thought the 'their' was implied.

            There. Now I am right even accounting for all the uncertainty.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8837155].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by Sumit Menon View Post

              The article says that it puts 1.4 million people into Medicaid (which btw, is not the insurance they signed up for). It says that people who can't get insured don't need to pay the penalty and for a year they can keep their old plan- neither of these being the terms when they signed up for the insurance. Okay, maybe I should change my statement a little...

              "You have a national health insurance policy that is unsustainable in the long term, and that put more people out of their insurance than it covered since the short span it has been implemented."


              ... but I thought the 'their' was implied.

              There. Now I am right even accounting for all the uncertainty.
              BTW I have insurance that is like the only I really can have. I had kaiser once, for example, but it would be no good for me now. It is SIMILAR to, and with one of the companies that DID drop, the plans that others have had. The company is *****SILENT***** Technically, they could be in VERY hot water if they had dropped me. That stops around june or july. Will I be dropped? WHAT will I do? And most of you know that I nearly died about 9 years ago. It SOUNDS like I am making this up, but it is true. HERE is what I had! Aortic dissection - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

              A couple days ago, a woman went in for an operation, and the doctor will likely get in trouble for doing it. His assistant GAVE UP on getting authorization after waiting on hold for 2HOURS! That was only one of MANY horror stories!

              And YEAH, they CLAIMED that only about 7 million(THIS RUN AROUND) were dropped! OK, a pro ACA site says 4.7 million. They CLAIM that the problem(THIS RUN AROUND) affects less than 16.5million.

              They are CROWING about like 2 million signups! A FEW POINTS!

              1. If there are 2 million signups, it is LESS than 2 million insured, because they have not been approved. They have ADMITTED that fact.
              2. The terms like signup have been obscured by the info collection mechanism, so you must ask questions that HAVEN'T often been asked!
              3. Let's say for sake of argument that 2 million have insurance through the site... 4.7-2=2.7M LOST THIS RUN AROUND. ***I*** am in the second group that I think starts next year. Of course, I may get a cancellation notice around june.

              BTW YEAH, some numbers involve the 30% of the US that ISN'T involved with this, but THEY have problems ALSO! And the FULL impact is ANYONE'S guess. So far, it IS a net loss.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8837618].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              Yes, the "their" does make a difference Sumit and that was what I was getting at. The meme that millions will be without healthcare coverage because of Obamacare is what others are implying whether you were implying that or not. These people had their existing plans canceled because the plans didn't meet the new standards set by the ACA and many ( most? ) will simply replace them with other comparable plans.

              By the way, I also do not believe we have a correct final number out yet on how many have received cancellation notices because of Obamacare. And the number of those who have received coverage under Obamacare ( not just those who gotten coverage through the exchanges ) is estimated to be between 7 and 9 million so even if we compared those who got cancelation notices to those who received coverage your facts are not really facts are they?

              Heck, some of those who are getting cancelation notices are even happy about it because of the new law. Here's one example:

              "But Neff, a 46-year-old self-employed writer, isn't outraged. She's relieved. Even though she makes too much money to receive a subsidy to buy insurance under the Affordable Care Act, the policy cancellation was good news for her.

              Neff says she's been stuck in a bad plan because treatment for a back problem years ago red-flagged her with a preexisting condition.

              "The deductible has ranged anywhere from $3,000 to as high as $5,000, which means I have to spend that much each year before the insurance even kicks in," she says. "I was rejected [from a more affordable policy] because I'd had a bout of sciatica five years previously that has never returned."

              On Jan. 1, the federal health law prohibits insurers from denying coverage or charging more for such preexisting problems. That's opened an array of options for Neff, who has enrolled in a new plan through California's state-run insurance marketplace, Covered California."

              Why some Americans are happy their health insurance is being canceled | PBS NewsHour

              By the way, I knew that when you said the ACA was unsustainable, that was an opinion. But why do you think it's unsustainable anyways? I see no reason for it not being sustainable.

              Originally Posted by Sumit Menon View Post



              Let me quote me,
              "You have a national health insurance policy that is unsustainable in the long term, and that put more people out of insurance than it covered since the short span it has been implemented."


              I said that the policy was unsustainable in the long term, which is an opinion (which I don't try to pass off as a fact), and threw most people out of insurance than it helped 'since the short span it has been implemented', which is a fact (for all we know until now).

              The article says that it puts 1.4 million people into Medicaid (which btw, is not the insurance they signed up for). It says that people who can't get insured don't need to pay the penalty and for a year they can keep their old plan- neither of these being the terms when they signed up for the insurance. Okay, maybe I should change my statement a little...

              "You have a national health insurance policy that is unsustainable in the long term, and that put more people out of their insurance than it covered since the short span it has been implemented."


              ... but I thought the 'their' was implied.

              There. Now I am right even accounting for all the uncertainty.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8838127].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            Are you saying that or are you just cut and pasting? Anyways, if you are saying we should have a minimum wage but we should just stay below some sort of "equilibrium point", then I say fine. Makes sense. If you are saying we shouldn't even have a a minimum wage I have to say that puts you right there with Michele Bachmann.
            WHO CARES if he cut and pasted, etc... It is consistent with what he has been saying, AND the facts! He forgot about minimum wage causing inflation, but otherwise was 100% right! Inflation *****DOES***** cause unemployment! More than that, those with the least resources, and soon with the most need, are the ones those jobs were targeted at, and the minimum wage most hurts THEM! They EVENTUALLY have to go on welfare or something EVEN if they have a degree!

            Nope. You made a statement as if it was a fact and the fact is we don't really know yet. That article says the number may end up being as low as 10,000. You believe the 4 million number.
            A few thousand years isn't enough for you? Did YOU know that, according to the US Department of labor, there was NO minimum wage in this country until Oct 24, 1938? That is 162 years AFTER this country started. It was less than 30 years before things started to really decline.

            HEY, I appreciate a fixed minimum as much as the next guy. When I started, I was in THEIR TARGET MARKET(YOUNG, and INEXPERIENCED). I was paid little, and had to save for the most minor of things. BTW they STILL took taxes out! But I didn't care! I was IN THEIR MARKET! I knew I was there to help out. I even got to be 'TRAINED" by the idiot that was there before me. He broke over a half dozen bottles in the span where WE were there. By contrast, I didn't break ONE the whole time I was there. I probably got blamed for the others behind my back though. I ALSO don't like the way you have to negotiate. So to do the BEST economically, workers need two skills I am not good at in such a case: 1. Call attention to another's failures, or attempts, that affect them. 2. NEGOTIATE. I have often not done either.

            But HEY, it is a fact of life. WHAT is the alternative? Having some FLUNKIES ARBITRARILY set a wage that may be too high, or even too low(BTW), but is now doomed to increase? Let's treat those in government no better than anyone else and THEN see how they do!!!!!!!

            And WHY raise the wage NOW? They just FINISHED basically cutting it by over 25%!!!!!!!

            Salary does *******NOT******* equal hourly wage!
            Salary equals hourly wage *****TIMES***** X!

            OLD X max for many minimum wage jobs? 40+!
            NEW X max for many minimum wage jobs? 29-!

            Oh well, more people will be "employed"! They may make 25% less, but at least they will work. OH YEAH, that unemployment may encourage them to not bother.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8837553].message }}
          • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8839047].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
      Originally Posted by Sumit Menon View Post

      Firstly, America has very high standards of poverty. Even if you adjust for every possible standard of living indicator there is, America still would have very high standards. I'd rather be poor in America than quite well off in Burundi. The problem of defining poverty so, for my lack of a decent vocabulary, loosely is that it brings forth the argument of government actively 'redistributing' the wealth to 'cure' it. You made up the disease and you set out to cure it. It is hypocritical that wealthy countries redistribute the wealth amongst themselves- under some arbitrary standards of poverty- while a larger population elsewhere is starving.

      Secondly, 40 million Americans are NOT in poverty. Poor is what they would be, if the government wasn't doing anything about it. Some people might slip out of the system, but if you are telling me that 40 million people aren't getting the benefits of the government's social programs then you should really consider going back to the drawing board.

      Thirdly, a lot of American problems stem from misplaced policy and I'm not talking at the incentive or implementation level. Just plain bad policy. For example -

      1. You can buy fast food on food stamps. What would you rather buy with free money- a packet of Cheetos or carrots? Fast food companies must be lobbying for this.

      2. The ETIC does nothing to alleviate poverty. I've read an ex-Walmart manager saying that the week ETIC goes out, sales go up by 20%. Big retail chains must essentially get back the money they pay in taxes.

      3. You have minimum wage laws, when jobs are moving OUT of your country. A small number of people are working minimum wage jobs and to help them, you are denying jobs to many young people, who could then themselves end up in the welfare cycle. To add to this, you take in a large number of illegal immigrants, give them amnesty and then deny them any way to work a job at their skill level, consequently, putting them on welfare too. (And then you fly in the families of those immigrants on a T1 visa even when there was no human trafficking in their home country, but I am going off the point.)

      4. You have a national health insurance policy that is unsustainable in the long term, and that put more people out of insurance than it covered since the short span it has been implemented.
      Actually, Sumit - right now around 1/6th of our population is on food stamps because they no longer can afford to feed their families. Our numbers are no longer sustainable. You hear a lot of bitching about people being "lazy, not wanting to work" but the truth is that there are a LOT that do want jobs - and can't get them now.

      I worked in the tourism industry back in 91. The same jobs that I had back then actually pay less than they did in 91. I loved the field - can't afford to work in it now.

      If anyone wants a solution to our economic instability -- there's only one answer. We have to kick Central Bank out of the country and go back to metal backed currency. Our gov has people sidetracked by keeping people focused on the "debt". It's a phony issue at the macro-economics level. The fiat currency we are using can't do anything BUT increase debt. That debt cannot be eradicated or even paid down - because every dollar printed has debt attached to it right off the press. Those who understand Central Bank currency are the only people that understand that the debt is such a moot point that it's laughable. The only way to remove or pay down that debt is to remove the fiat currency. Because people understand debt to be the same matter macro as it is micro (household), they do not understand that worrying about the debt is only a distraction to keep us from understanding how our whole population is being enslaved by the few.

      The only way we will ever solve our problems is to tell Central Bank to take a long walk off a short pier. We are at the stage right now that if we don't do so very soon, we will have nothing left to lose.
      Signature

      Sal
      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
      Beyond the Path

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8835895].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Sumit Menon
        Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

        Actually, Sumit - right now around 1/6th of our population is on food stamps because they no longer can afford to feed their families. Our numbers are no longer sustainable. You hear a lot of bitching about people being "lazy, not wanting to work" but the truth is that there are a LOT that do want jobs - and can't get them now.

        I worked in the tourism industry back in 91. The same jobs that I had back then actually pay less than they did in 91. I loved the field - can't afford to work in it now.

        If anyone wants a solution to our economic instability -- there's only one answer. We have to kick Central Bank out of the country and go back to metal backed currency. Our gov has people sidetracked by keeping people focused on the "debt". It's a phony issue at the macro-economics level. The fiat currency we are using can't do anything BUT increase debt. That debt cannot be eradicated or even paid down - because every dollar printed has debt attached to it right off the press. Those who understand Central Bank currency are the only people that understand that the debt is such a moot point that it's laughable. The only way to remove or pay down that debt is to remove the fiat currency. Because people understand debt to be the same matter macro as it is micro (household), they do not understand that worrying about the debt is only a distraction to keep us from understanding how our whole population is being enslaved by the few.

        The only way we will ever solve our problems is to tell Central Bank to take a long walk off a short pier. We are at the stage right now that if we don't do so very soon, we will have nothing left to lose.
        As far as I understand, Central Banks were established to solve problems that the classical theory of economics couldn't solve. During recession, it isn't a bad idea to create some inflation and get the country back on track faster than it'd normally take. But, why the central banks keeps creating inflation during non-recessionary period I don't understand.

        Going back to a metal backed currency should be very bad for the US. The US dollar has a distinct advantage of being the reserve currency and going back to pre-Nixon era would cause other countries to follow suit and the dollar would lose that status. And no country is going to trust US again with their currency, especially after what Nixon did.

        I must read up more on monetary policy before I'm in a position to make any useful comment however.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8836883].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author HeySal
          Originally Posted by Sumit Menon View Post

          As far as I understand, Central Banks were established to solve problems that the classical theory of economics couldn't solve. During recession, it isn't a bad idea to create some inflation and get the country back on track faster than it'd normally take. But, why the central banks keeps creating inflation during non-recessionary period I don't understand.

          Going back to a metal backed currency should be very bad for the US. The US dollar has a distinct advantage of being the reserve currency and going back to pre-Nixon era would cause other countries to follow suit and the dollar would lose that status. And no country is going to trust US again with their currency, especially after what Nixon did.

          I must read up more on monetary policy before I'm in a position to make any useful comment however.
          A central bank might have been able to work in our favor.......but not when they are charging a fee plus interest on each dollar printed -- it's a scam and it's about run its course. There's a lot of things that would be working differently if it all worked as it was supposed to. The problem is that every system we have here is so corrupted that we will have to flatten just about everything and start over to straighten any of it out again. We, in a matter of speaking, either go Iceland on these crooks, or we're in for one hella rough time ahead of us. What is going on now has the same flow as every damned fascist dictatorship that's been in power over the last 100 years. Until people can get their heads around that fact and understand it not only can happen to us, but is happening right now, we're proverbially f**ked.
          Signature

          Sal
          When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
          Beyond the Path

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8836930].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author socialentry
    They should just prop up failing small businesses.

    100% employment right there.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8838577].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dan Riffle
    [Edit: decided to stay out of it. Exercise in futility.]
    Signature

    If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8849936].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lcombs
    Originally Posted by beasty513 View Post

    What should be done?


    What are your thoughts and why you feel this way?
    Poverty?

    There are people in Sudan standing in line all day for their daily cup of rice.

    The poorest Americans have housing, food, TVs, Cell phones and STILL complain about not having enough.

    The only "poor" people in America are the homeless who have been neglected and/or forgotten. O'bama gave BILLIONS to multi-millionaires who cheated people out of their money and then squandered it while their employees were laid off and losing their homes and veterens who served and lost everything
    are living on the street.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8851054].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author research
    Originally Posted by beasty513 View Post

    What should be done?


    What are your thoughts and why you feel this way?
    The problem of poverty is not just located in the United States . . .

    Many countries in Africa, South America and Asia face the same problems and how.

    In Europe many countries face economic difficulties and a growing unemployment problem.

    Here in the United Kingdom poverty takes its toll . . . as the rich get richer and the poor struggle to make ends meet.

    Governments are full of promise and so little positive action.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8852009].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by research View Post

      The problem of poverty is not just located in the United States . . .

      Many countries in Africa, South America and Asia face the same problems and how.

      In Europe many countries face economic difficulties and a growing unemployment problem.

      Here in the United Kingdom poverty takes its toll . . . as the rich get richer and the poor struggle to make ends meet.

      Governments are full of promise and so little positive action.
      If our governments didn't frustrate things, people could start their OWN businesses. I have a copy of the OLD sears catalog, like from the 30s, and it shows some things they had targeted to smaller businesses. EARLIER, there were LOTS of small LOCAL businesses. They had relatively few regulations, taxes, etc...

      NOW, a kid can't even run a lemonade stand. FRANKLY, the reasons I would give for not trusting kids with lemonade are ALSO why I don't trust many "adults". Just thinking about it makes me want to buy lemons and make my own. But some kids I would be HAPPY with. AGE is not that meaningful.

      Anyway, for a LOT of reasons, mostly traced to government, the local companies were gobbled up. Some workers that made a nice high level middle class income on THEIR terms are now lucky if they make a mid level middle class income on someone elses!

      And someone came up with a NICE way to describe capitalism. It is what is SUPPOSED to happen! He called it a kind of "forced altruism"! The idea is that you are BROKE! POOR! You want something! If you find something someone ELSE wants/needs, you can fill it and get the money or product or service YOU want! Is it perfect? NOPE! Do people try to cheat it? YEP! Do some good fail? YEP. Do some bad make a bundle YEP.

      But has anyone ever come up with a better way? NOPE!

      Even if you DID give everyone FREE money. HOW does it get value? HOW? The ONLY reason money has value is because it is accepted by people that give you goods or services! That is IT! In a way, people that want to be given free money forever want others to be THEIR SLAVES!!!!!

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8853704].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Yep Tim, it looks like the SCOTUS has already decided on what the feds can and can not do in relation to the 10th amendment and in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1... the constitution reads...

    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and...


    ... provide for...


    ... the common Defense and...


    ... general Welfare...


    ... of the United States;

    I'm sure there'll be more issues to come but the question of whether the feds can enact something like social security etc. has already been settled.


    BTW...

    The 4th CJ of the SCOTUS - back in the early 1800s also said...

    ..."a constitution, intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be...

    ...adapted to the various crisis of human affairs"
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8855987].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author garyv
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post


      ..."a constitution, intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be...

      ...adapted to the various crisis of human affairs"
      Yes those were meant to be called "amendments" not "executive orders"
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8856068].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    A government run solely by sole fiat is a MONARCHY unless it was not inherited by a recognized monarch in which case it is called a DICTATORSHIP. SIMPLE! And dictatorships tend to only get worse. The US never had a monarch, and luckily European kings and queens have TENDED to not be TOO bad. There have been MANY ASIAN and African "monarchs" that have been VERY bad. And DICTATORships have tended to be bad overall. Can you even name ONE that wasn't horrible? So be careful what you wish for!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8856121].message }}
  • The welfare system has been twisted into the opposite of what it was designed to do. And that's a result of decades of partisan tug-of-war games.

    The thing is, a mentally healthy adult actually wants to work, and to be independent. For that reason, I'm opposed to giving money to anyone (other than the very disabled) for doing absolutely nothing. The flip side of this coin, however, is that we also need to be responsible for employing every adult who wants a job. You can't do one without the other.
    Signature

    Bros find strictly platonic dudes on seekBromance.com
    _______________________________________________
    "It's pretty simple. You work hard, you believe anything is possible, and you try to make the world better."

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8857100].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by Hopeless Bromantic View Post

      The welfare system has been twisted into the opposite of what it was designed to do. And that's a result of decades of partisan tug-of-war games.

      The thing is, a mentally healthy adult actually wants to work, and to be independent. For that reason, I'm opposed to giving money to anyone (other than the very disabled) for doing absolutely nothing. The flip side of this coin, however, is that we also need to be responsible for employing every adult who wants a job. You can't do one without the other.
      That I disagree with. I have to be responsible for myself, just like you and everyone else has to be responsible for themselves.
      If someone needs and wants a job and I have one to offer, I'll hire them. Bottom line is the only person I'm responsible for is me. When my wife was alive and the kids where still kids I was also responsible for them, but that's it.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8857127].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Kay King
      I read a study recently that talked people "wanting to work". It's natural but the study found those who don't work for an extended period of time lose the desire to work. It makes sense when you think about it - and it's a good reason to required something of people receiving benefits.

      The paper I read concluded if you give people benefits and require nothing from them in return - you may be taking away their self worth.
      Signature
      Every child needs a pet because every family needs an optimist

      Saving one dog will not save the world....but will forever change the world for one dog.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8857138].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
        Originally Posted by Kay King View Post

        I read a study recently that talked people "wanting to work". It's natural but the study found those who don't work for an extended period of time lose the desire to work. It makes sense when you think about it - and it's a good reason to required something of people receiving benefits.

        The paper I read concluded if you give people benefits and require nothing from them in return - you may be taking away their self worth.
        That's like the people on extended unemployment benefits. Many have simply stopped looking for work, which makes the numbers look good for the admin., now they're saying the economy is improving because less people are looking for work.:rolleyes:
        When I lost my job I was on unemployment for a short time. But I knew my chances of finding another job in my field at my age where slim to none. So I figured out what I could do to make some money, dropped unemployment and went out and did what I needed to do.
        Signature

        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
        Getting old ain't for sissy's
        As you are I was, as I am you will be
        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8857150].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author beasty513
          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

          That's like the people on extended unemployment benefits. Many have simply stopped looking for work, which makes the numbers look good for the admin., now they're saying the economy is improving because less people are looking for work.:rolleyes:
          When I lost my job I was on unemployment for a short time. But I knew my chances of finding another job in my field at my age where slim to none. So I figured out what I could do to make some money, dropped unemployment and went out and did what I needed to do.
          You are correct.


          The people who stopped looking for work

          are not counted towards the unemployment figures.


          There is no economic recovery and anything you

          are hearing otherwise is propaganda.


          6.7% unemployment rate?


          Yeah right....
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8857590].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by beasty513 View Post

            You are correct.


            The people who stopped looking for work

            are not counted towards the unemployment figures.


            There is no economic recovery and anything you

            are hearing otherwise is propaganda.


            6.7% unemployment rate?


            Yeah right....

            Based on the CIA fact books data, HERE are the work age demographics for the US:

            15-24 13.7
            25-54 40.2
            55-64 12.3

            66.2% (209,482,353)

            SURE, 15 is a little too young, but the IRS says you should work past 64, so it kind of balances out. SURE, some are disabled, but various things work THAT out. Lets say it is only 209Million employable.

            The number often thrown around is like 57% or 180,370,002 NOT WORKING full time! Only 47% Of Working Age Americans Have Full Time Jobs - Business Insider The number that are traditionally unemployable is about 106,956,248. That leaves 73,413,754. Even taking THIS as gospel puts the number around 35% un, or under, employed. Of course, this doesn't count ALL those heavily UNDER employed. And HOW do they count multiple jobs, employment by a household, etc...

            I recently heard a stat. I believe it is ALL of indiana. 33% are living below the poverty level! It kind of fits! I guess it is NATION WIDE!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[8858105].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Originally Posted by beasty513 View Post

    What should be done?


    What are your thoughts and why you feel this way?

    Lots of erroneous info in this thread.

    I never answered your questions so here goes...

    A little history...

    It's the 50 year anniversary since LBJ declared the war on poverty.



    When the WOP was declared, the Poverty Rate stood at around 26% and its been as low as 12% but now its back up to 16-17% thanks to the great recession.

    So those who say that no progress has been made on that front, simply don't know what they're talking about but that's nothing new around here - especially when it comes to national economic matters.

    But of course, they'll probably counter with the books are cooked since those are gov stats.


    Interesting tidbit...

    Without SSecurity, the PRate for seniors would be over 40% but because of it, the PR for seniors is down to 9%.

    Also because of SS their status was mostly unaffected by the great recession.

    Of course the great recession has not been helpful to anyone except the well to do but the first thing I would do to address American poverty would be...

    ... to slowly but surely (maybe over a 5 year period)...

    ... get the national minimum wage in line with inflation - which would be about $10.75 instead of where it is has been stuck at $7 something.

    Things to understand regarding a higher min wage:

    1: There is no historical proof that slowly increasing the min wage would hurt job creation - at any level.

    As a matter of fact more people spending more money normally equals job growth in our type of consumer society.

    2: A raise in the MW would probably push up wages throughout the society. Again more people probably spending more money fueling more job growth.

    3: There is no historical proof that inflation would go bonkers if the MW is raised.

    Since the above 3 points are true, I don't understand the objections to raising the MW from anyone concerned about the well being of the American people.

    Also...


    Since the national yearly deficit is now about 650 billion down from a dangerous 1.4 trillion in 2009...

    ... its way past time to make strategic investments in our people and the nation to get the American economy humming again.