America's Poor deserve to be Poor; It's their fault - Page 4 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

mpd8488 · #46 (**permalink**) 10-31-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by CorpMediaSux

What's completely ignored by the right is that the VAST majority of that top 20% were born into the upper middle class at the very least as children. More importantly, they are almost always associated with business' that receive huge federal subsidies, tax breaks and other thiings that is welfare, just in a different form.

What's so amazing to me is how the right wing defines welfare. Fund uncompetitive U.S. car corporations even as they ship manufacturing jobs overseas = OK. Help a working class single mother with daycare = welfare and a hurt to society. Where is the logic there. We give money to people who are eliminating manufacturing in this economy and take it from the segment that is the most needy.

Also I am so OVER the right wing's total lack of historical knowledge about welfare. The U.S. welfare state was constructed in the mid 30s with the Second New Deal (Social Security Act, Agricultural Adjustment, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, WPA, CCC) and was extended further by Truman with the GI Bill. Who benefited from these reforms? Well lets see, the social security act created savings accounts for industrial and commercial employees but did not do so for agricultural and domestic workers. Southern states, even though they relied upon agricultural labor decided that those kinds of workers didn't count. Now who were industrial workers and who were agricultural workers. You guessed it. Industrial unions ensured that ONLY white/ethnic immigrant men had access to manufacturing jobs which dominated the urban north and southern agricultural workers were overwhelmingly African American.

But what about the Agricultural Adjustment Act you say, surely that helped African Americans. WRONG. The AAA screwed over poor whites and poor Blacks because it rewarded land owners who kicked sharecroppers off their land in order to reduce supply and raise the price of agricultural products. White sharecroppers of course had many more employment opportunities, African Americans? Not so much.

So in the 30s and 40s we had a welfare state alright, but it was a welfare state that ONLY helped out white men. I have no doubt that ALL of your parents benefited from New Deal welfare and had no problem getting a subsidized home loan or free college education with the GI Bill.

Funny thing, the white opposition to welfare only seems to happen after the sixties when the Great Society merely extended the benefits of the New Deal to african american and mexican citizens. Suddenly the right wing freaks out, says we're being taxed to death and raises hell from the moment those bills are signed into law. Less than 16 years later the Reagan administration is dismantling the Great Society and there's been a continued REDUCTION not inrease in those benefits until the present day. I'm sorry, but the racism that is inherent in this argument is undeniable especially if you actually know the history.

No true conservative supports corporate welfare either, and your attempt to bring out the race card in the discussion merely shows that you are either not willing to, or cannot back your support of a more broad reaching social entitlement program

danielpalos · #47 (**permalink**) 10-31-2006

I was simply stating that a warfare-state economic model is less conducive to promoting the general welfare than a welfare-state economic model.

I am of the opinion that the warfare-state economic model will tend to be driven more by ideology than by economics.

What do you think of an at-will unemployment compensation that pays an adult "potential" labor market participant a subsidy (approximately ten thousand per year) to not provide traditional labor to the economy.

conformfailure · #48 (**permalink**) 10-31-2006

Geez Louise...

Didn't my article link clearly show how the rich are eating up the capital of this nation as the middle class falls deeper into the abyss?

And we call this a working acceptable system?

When was social darwinism acceptable to neo-cons?

The Progressive · #49 (**permalink**) 10-31-2006

It is true that in this nation of over abundance that there is nothing that could keep a person poor so if someone is stupid enough to have a drug addiction or cannot quit spending their money on cigarettes, pot, a cell phone, cable with all the movie channels, a broadband internet connection, parties every weekend, etc, etc, etc, then they have gotten themselves into their own mess and i have enough common sense to know the best way to help people is for them to help themselves.

conformfailure · #50 (**permalink**) 11-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Progressive

It is true that in this nation of over abundance that there is nothing that could keep a person poor so if someone is stupid enough to have a drug addiction or cannot quit spending their money on cigarettes, pot, a cell phone, cable with all the movie channels, a broadband internet connection, parties every weekend, etc, etc, etc, then they have gotten themselves into their own mess and i have enough common sense to know the best way to help people is for them to help themselves.

It's good to know Paris Hilton lived life right.

iamwhatiseem · #51 (**permalink**) 11-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by CorpMediaSux

What's completely ignored by the right is that the VAST majority of that top 20% were born....

Corp - pointing to corporate welfare is irrelevant.

The truth - welfare (as I have stated twice in this thread) was an honorable and solid practice when first put in place - it was meant ONLY as a temporary safety-net for people to fall back on and or improve their chances to build a decent start in life.
The early benefiters did the right thing, they used it as intended, they DID NOT want hand-outs, they wanted a chance.
This is not the case for "black welfare". Blacks were segregated into large public housing units set far away from economic centers and white neighborhoods. This "new" welfare system started in the 60's was NOT the welfare of the 30's and 40's.

CowboyTed · #52 (**permalink**) 11-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by mpd8488

Is that really a fair situation though? Why do you want to rely on the rich to prop up citizens in lower economic classes? Why can't the individuals be relied upon to take care of themselves?

I'm not saying that a safety net or paying for education is necessarily a bad thing, but you can't argue that blatant redistribution of wealth is fair when money only comes from the rich. Should the rich be obliged to pay more taxes than others? sure, but everybody benefits from the protection of government, so everybody should share in the misery of paying taxes.

The situation you described is overly complex and unfair to those who worked to ensure their financial stability. Why not create a system that lets the poor help themselves? Offer education and trade skills training (along with temporary cost of living subsidies) to support those who want to better their situation and most will do so and give back to society by being productive and being good citizens. Those who don't want to do not deserve society's support.

This is what my first part says. Education is free and your living is paid for while in college (by the way there is a time limit but it quite long and you can continue to Phd.)

The rich should be obilgied to pay more. They one can afford it. Two they have the choice to be poor if they want ( this never happens for some reason.).

There is two main ways to get rich which counts for 97+% of people who are rich or upper middle class.
1. Inherit it, deserve to be taxed.
2. Educated, taxing is just recouping our investment. since we paid for the education.

We also believe that a strong economy usally relies on the backs of every worker.. Therefore we believe that property speculators should use there pay and they bitched but there wasn't a single person that had sympathy. They made huge amounts of money during the years and social housing just helped them pay it back.

Also the rich have advantages of taking tax breaks. The Irish goverment doesn't like people going inveting there money on any old project. they like to controll the money through tax breaks... Good example... If you build student accomadation in the city center you get building costs written off over ten years, hospitals as well.
Pensions: 23% max is allowed to be placed into your pension, you can personnally manage that and buy property or stock individually.

By not taxing the the lower income we encourage them to work. Seriously do you know one rich person which doesn't work or invest because the tax is too high.

Is it fair? look at the reasons for being rich. A rich person can always choose to be poor.

iamwhatiseem · #53 (**permalink**) 11-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

This is what my first part says. Education is free and your living is paid for while in college....

Cowboy - I think mabye you are confusing corporate taxes and personal income tax.
Most of us pay somewhere around 20-30%.
Most "rich" people pay between 40-60%. Take Bill O'Reilly who releases his tax statements every year. Last year he paid 58% of his income in taxes NOT counting sales taxes, excise tax and property tax. Factor those in and he is probably nearing 70% of his income paid to the government. What more do you want?
Rich people pay enormous taxes.

CowboyTed · #54 (**permalink**) 11-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by proUSA

Far too long.

I know a lady who has two kids and works 6 to 7 months out of the year making min wage (she won’t work better jobs), she then always somehow looses her job and collects welfare the rest of the year. Come income tax time, she receives back between $5K and $6K from the government. Three years ago, the government even financed her a three bedroom home…….I ask; is this fair? Why should the people look out for themselves when the government will do it for them?

PS: she laughs every year for beating the system…She was my ex-sister in law…The bitch.

That is just a bad welfare system. Giving rich just straight tax cuts with no provisos is just as bad.

This woman should have been helped using childcare and education... this was a dumb lazy hand out... No country in europe would have tollarated this... Contining in tempoary employment is not acceptable... Building a career is how they view there mission...

It's a lazy system you describe... does not mean Welfare is bad..

CowboyTed · #55 (**permalink**) 11-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

Cowboy - I think mabye you are confusing corporate taxes and personal income tax.
Most of us pay somewhere around 20-30%.
Most "rich" people pay between 40-60%. Take Bill O'Reilly who releases his tax statements every year. Last year he paid 58% of his income in taxes NOT counting sales taxes, excise tax and property tax. Factor those in and he is probably nearing 70% of his income paid to the government. What more do you want?
Rich people pay enormous taxes.

We pay lower taxes than the US. But we enjoy universal healthcare, free education and a lower crime rate... By the way we have very small defense spending... Our coporate tax is very low 12.5%.

Shit man sorry...

iamwhatiseem · #56 (**permalink**) 11-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by CowboyTed

We pay lower taxes than the US. But we enjoy universal healthcare, free education and a lower crime rate... By the way we have very small defense spending... Our coporate tax is very low 12.5%.

Shit man sorry...

Well we pay higher taxes because we have an enormous military that the entire free world depends on. (not counting it's current missuse)
We have gigantic infrastructure to maintain etc.
There is a good reason why our taxes are high - there is NO reason to make it higher for the rich however.
As I said this is a liberal myth.

conformfailure · #57 (**permalink**) 11-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamwhatiseem

Well we pay higher taxes because we have an enormous military that the entire free world depends on. (not counting it's current missuse)
We have gigantic infrastructure to maintain etc.
There is a good reason why our taxes are high - there is NO reason to make it higher for the rich however.
As I said this is a liberal myth.

You talk about liberal myth after you give one of the most silly myths ever.

Quote:

Well we pay higher taxes because we have an enormous military that the entire free world depends on.

Is it because baby jesus says so?

You want to complain about liberal myth? You're whole entire angle is based on America the great and glorious country that saves the world. Excuse me while I go throw up. Didn't you outgrow the Capt. America underroos?

You're whole entire argument is to allow the rich to eat up America's capital to a small 10 percent. I don't see this as the work of hard-working Americans. I call it a swindle.

iamwhatiseem · #58 (**permalink**) 11-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by conformfailure

You talk about liberal myth after you give one of the most silly myths ever.

And what, pray tell, myth are you referring to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by conformfailure

You want to complain about liberal myth? You're whole entire angle is based on America the great and glorious country that saves the world. Excuse me while I go throw up. Didn't you outgrow the Capt. America underroos?

At what point did you read my statement as saying "America the great and glorious"?
So you are disputing that the free world depends on the U.S. military?? You wanna go down that route...and let's start AFTER WWII..shall we?