Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Republicans in Arizona going after the poor

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

    It's a myth, period. If there ever was one, it was not welfare making the person look like upper middle class, but the extremely profitable black market of drug. If you take the entire sum that was once given to a mother and 8 kids, it would not add up to even middle middle class resources. What it is, is the insanity of conservatism, who do not might hyperbole, and would rather climb a pole and tell a lie than to stand on the ground and tell the truth.

    Now it used to piss me off back in the 70s to get behind a lady paying with food stamps, and she would have steak where I was buying hamburger. But I lived in a great modern home, with a new car, and one used one, while she was living in a shack, in the ghetto. The only thing she had going was the food she could get, but even that has been gutted thanks to you guys, and Clinton, who was one of you guys. That is why you should vote for Hillary, for she will represent your beliefs and will get the dems to go along with it, to the point you will get a chill up your leg in going after the poor in this nation.

    The fact that MNCs with the dems and repubs have hollowed out this nation, creating more poverty, even as you would take away the little that they get today is not only a lack of human decency but the very definition of immorality, all caused by a damned ideology, that is disconnected from reality, and always was. The only way I could ever agree with you guys is if there was enough living wage jobs to employ all who are on welfare. Which there isn't and never will be, given what has been done to the economy that used to allow working people to prosper and not have to be on welfare. When "what is" does not match what you falsely believe it is, that is when the suffering takes root. And what you think the situation is does not match reality, which has always been a problem when it comes to conservative beliefs.

    I wish I could be around with this predatory capitalism implodes, and watch the conservative try to come to terms with that, and they will not have the poor to blame for it. But that they will live in denial is given, for they deny reality, and that isn't gonna change. Like Welfare Queens being prolific, and that welfare created them. And that welfare is so great that it allows people to prosper and so they will not even look for a job, if one even existed that they were qualified to do.

    I think welfare should be increased so that those that have to be on it can actually enough to live on, without resorting to illegal activity, until at least some sanity comes back and we once again have an economy that is not just structured to serve the top half of one percent. For that kind of economy creates poverty and you know it. Well, obviously you do not know it, for you deny the interrelationships involved in predatory capitalism. When all growth in GDP, or 99 percent of it goes to the very top, and this isn't a problem with you guys, there are some loose marbles rolling about in your heads.
    You are out of touch with reality my friend. You'd have to believe I was lying about the masses in the clinic and the story of my sister-in-law and her welfare community, secure you're myth theory. Believe as you choose, but it is not a lie. I seen it up close and personal and it exists.

    I acknowledged that there are those who genuinely need it. But the number is much smaller than you want to believe.

    I never said that these welfare communities were up to lower middle middle class. I said they accept the sub standard way of life that they were born into and have reasons to choose to remain in it.

    And it is fortunate for you that you lived in a great modern home with a new car, but I did not. At one point I had to live in a small studio appt. with two kids and an infant. For 5 years, two old cars. No steak in my cart.

    Later in life another hard time came, went with out heat and electric too often, again no steak in my cart. So yes, if I was on line behind someone buying steak on food stamps, I'd be pretty pissed off. Not every middle class family has experience the life as you, yet pays more taxes than they could afford.

    So if your thinking is so high and mighty, let me keep that steak money and buy a pound of chop meat to feed my entire family and with your excess money you buy the woman the damn steak.

    When I wasn't in dyar straights I've picket up the bill in the supermarket for a woman in front of me on line, so she didn't have to put back food that her food stamps didn't cover. I've donated jackets for kids and bought new toys for children. I put money in the poor box at church. I've volunteered my time to package food for the poor. I donate to special ed. students at school. I've bought books for kids at school book fairs every year that I had the money, when their parents did not have the money to give them. I've given a family my last 40 dollars when I lived in that small appt. because the woman was kicked out of her parents house and the family would have had to sleep in their car. So you buy the steak for that woman and accuse people like me of being responsible for taking the food out of the mouths of the poor. You want to spend your excess, then spend it and feel noble, stop believing that you have a right to expect me and others like me give what they don't have, to equal your nobility. Only the people who work for their own money, have the right to buy steak! Maybe at the time you stood behind that food stamp person buying that steak, that ten to twenty bucks could have been in my pocket to put some diesel fuel in my oil tank and my children would have been freezing one less night. Your idea of what is compassionate is distorted.

    And to make sure you don't misinterpret my tone, I'm pretty pissed off that you have the nerve to accuse me of being incompassionate and a cause of poverty because I don't want my money stolen from me by the gov't and given to someone else to buy a freakin steak.

    I pray to God that their are not enough people like you who would elect Hilary Clinton, who is the root of all evil and the poster child for the very corruption that is bringing our country to it's knees. Only an idiot or self serving elitist would vote for a piece of crap like Hillary Clinton.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #17
      Originally posted by msc View Post

      You are out of touch with reality my friend. You'd have to believe I was lying about the masses in the clinic and the story of my sister-in-law and her welfare community, secure you're myth theory. Believe as you choose, but it is not a lie. I seen it up close and personal and it exists.

      I acknowledged that there are those who genuinely need it. But the number is much smaller than you want to believe.

      I never said that these welfare communities were up to lower middle middle class. I said they accept the sub standard way of life that they were born into and have reasons to choose to remain in it.

      And it is fortunate for you that you lived in a great modern home with a new car, but I did not. At one point I had to live in a small studio appt. with two kids and an infant. For 5 years, two old cars. No steak in my cart.

      Later in life another hard time came, went with out heat and electric too often, again no steak in my cart. So yes, if I was on line behind someone buying steak on food stamps, I'd be pretty pissed off. Not every middle class family has experience the life as you, yet pays more taxes than they could afford.

      So if your thinking is so high and mighty, let me keep that steak money and buy a pound of chop meat to feed my entire family and with your excess money you buy the woman the damn steak.

      When I wasn't in dyar straights I've picket up the bill in the supermarket for a woman in front of me on line, so she didn't have to put back food that her food stamps didn't cover. I've donated jackets for kids and bought new toys for children. I put money in the poor box at church. I've volunteered my time to package food for the poor. I donate to special ed. students at school. I've bought books for kids at school book fairs every year that I had the money, when their parents did not have the money to give them. I've given a family my last 40 dollars when I lived in that small appt. because the woman was kicked out of her parents house and the family would have had to sleep in their car. So you buy the steak for that woman and accuse people like me of being responsible for taking the food out of the mouths of the poor. You want to spend your excess, then spend it and feel noble, stop believing that you have a right to expect me and others like me give what they don't have, to equal your nobility. Only the people who work for their own money, have the right to buy steak! Maybe at the time you stood behind that food stamp person buying that steak, that ten to twenty bucks could have been in my pocket to put some diesel fuel in my oil tank and my children would have been freezing one less night. Your idea of what is compassionate is distorted.

      And to make sure you don't misinterpret my tone, I'm pretty pissed off that you have the nerve to accuse me of being incompassionate and a cause of poverty because I don't want my money stolen from me by the gov't and given to someone else to buy a freakin steak.

      I pray to God that their are not enough people like you who would elect Hilary Clinton, who is the root of all evil and the poster child for the very corruption that is bringing our country to it's knees. Only an idiot or self serving elitist would vote for a piece of crap like Hillary Clinton.
      The maximum amount that was given in the 1980s in welfare would not have allowed anyone on it to drive around a new caddy. To believe this is just absurd. If someone who was poor and on welfare had one, it came from someone else, or it was bought by drug money. For welfare wasn't and isn't enough to afford on. That is just the fact. And that is reality.

      Anyone who actually believes welfare was so great as to afford a caddy, using welfare, is disconnected. Granted, someone could use fraud, by having a good source of income and then file for welfare, but that's fraud, stealing, and criminality, not someone who is poor and using welfare to survive. But the welfare queen was the argument used to pull people off of welfare, as if this was the rule rather than the exception. And this is what you are trying to defend, which is caused by a disconnect from reality.

      And as Thomas Paine once said, arguing with someone who refuses to use reason is like giving medicine to a corpse.

      But I think you are a man of reason, so read some info from Princeton, a study, to see what these welfare queens that were supposed to be so prolific were getting....

      In 1992, approximately
      87% of AFDC families received food stamps,
      which added significantly to their purchasing
      power by reducing the portion of the
      cash grant that parents had to spend on
      food.6 For a family of three in the median
      state in 1994, the maximum food stamp
      allotment was $295 per month, added to the
      maximum AFDC grant of $366 per month.
      However, even a family receiving both maximum
      benefits had a total income equaling
      only 69% of the federal poverty level.7
      Government housing assistance is another
      benefit intended for poor families, but it
      is not guaranteed. In 1993, only 9% of
      AFDC recipients lived in public housing, and
      another 12% received federal rent subsidies

      Hardly enough to be driving a caddy.

      http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchi...s/07_01_01.pdf



      Last edited by Blue Doggy; 05-31-2015, 11:42 AM.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #18
        Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

        The maximum amount that was given in the 1980s in welfare would not have allowed anyone on it to drive around a new caddy. To believe this is just absurd. If someone who was poor and on welfare had one, it came from someone else, or it was bought by drug money. For welfare wasn't and isn't enough to afford on. That is just the fact. And that is reality.

        Anyone who actually believes welfare was so great as to afford a caddy, using welfare, is disconnected. Granted, someone could use fraud, by having a good source of income and then file for welfare, but that's fraud, stealing, and criminality, not someone who is poor and using welfare to survive. But the welfare queen was the argument used to pull people off of welfare, as if this was the rule rather than the exception. And this is what you are trying to defend, which is caused by a disconnect from reality.

        And as Thomas Paine once said, arguing with someone who refuses to use reason is like giving medicine to a corpse.

        But I think you are a man of reason, so read some info from Princeton, a study, to see what these welfare queens that were supposed to be so prolific were getting....




        Hardly enough to be driving a caddy.

        http://www.princeton.edu/futureofchi...s/07_01_01.pdf



        There are a goodly number of families around here where the man of the house has a job and the woman and the children draw welfare, food stamps, housing, etc. The man's income is not counted because they are not married.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #19
          What it boils down to is that no one will ever raise themselves out of poverty without using their money productively. That is the only way anyone gets richer, rich or poor, and the rich are demonized for it. If money is only used to consume, then no amount of money will ever be enough.

          Clinton was "guided" by a Republican Congress to reform welfare in a way that required an honest effort to work. And that is a vital first step, but without an education in how to support life, the mindless consumption will continue and the cycle of poverty will claim another generation. But that is intentionally not taught in schools, because teaching people how to productively allocate their resources will not create another generation of dependent voters.

          Originally posted by Benjamin Franklin
          I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #20
            Originally posted by Commodore View Post
            What it boils down to is that no one will ever raise themselves out of poverty without using their money productively. That is the only way anyone gets richer, rich or poor, and the rich are demonized for it. If money is only used to consume, then no amount of money will ever be enough.

            Clinton was "guided" by a Republican Congress to reform welfare in a way that required an honest effort to work. And that is a vital first step, but without an education in how to support life, the mindless consumption will continue and the cycle of poverty will claim another generation. But that is intentionally not taught in schools, because teaching people how to productively allocate their resources will not create another generation of dependent voters.
            I back up Ben Franklin's observation. And it's getting very tired discussing the obvious with those who refuse to recognize it. Some think they are wiser than Ben. People can find a stat or pole to support their theories either way, but until people live it, they have no idea what they are talking about. A stat without the entire story, additional details is worthless.

            Where are these wonderful stats that prove that all this welfare has bettered the lives of more people?

            All these wonderful humanitarians such as Opah and Hillary believe welfare and more welfare is so righteous because so many are in need in the US, then why the hell do they start foundations and give personal money to those over seas? How about Oprah using her excess money to build schools for the children and education for the underprivileged US citizens. Sure help people in other countries and get a notch on your belt for being a great humanitarian, then complain that there are so many poor people in the US, then reprimand the US middle class that are trying to get by or even prosper for not doing enough.

            Buy a couple of mansions and own more property than is necessary for any human being to have, then call people like me selfish for wanting to keep more of my money to buy my kid a car or help my kid more with a student loan or maybe even go on a nice vacation once a year, before feeding all the poor families in the US.

            How about all the millionaire/Billionaire politicians and Hollywood people that believe more welfare should be given to the poor, reduce their standard of living to ONE elaborate home, Own ONE car and vacation twice a year, then pool all their excess money to support the poor. When they do that, only then will any of their words hold water. Yep, tell me that I don't deserve to keep more of my money while you don't have to spend a minute of your current life wondering how you're going to pay a bill, or wondering how to pay for your kids college. Send your kid to the best of the best schools then tell me my kid doesn't deserve the same when so many others are suffering. All of these people are talking the talk but don't have to and won't walk the walk. Yet people believe that they care more about the poor than the conservative middle class citizen who doesn't want to pay more than they can afford into a welfare system.

            The very people that are convincing the poor people that the rich people have too much money and that's why they're suffering, are the very rich people that have all the money. Sure it's the evil hard working CEO's that are hogging up all the money, they shouldn't be entitled to it. The country should be more equal in income. Those greedy CEO's, but hey, sing a good song, give a good speech, act in a good movie and then you are certainly entitled to accumulate more money instead of feeding a small town.

            Add a clause to the a welfare bill stating that no one is allowed to own more than one house on a one acre piece of land and only allowed to own up to two cars and see if all these humanitarians will vote for it.

            Yes, follow the money.

            People who want more welfare are Rich, poor, or stupid.
            Last edited by msc; 06-01-2015, 06:20 AM.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #21
              Soaking The Rich Won't Make America Happy

              Politicians these days love to talk about “happiness.” For one thing, talking about happiness is a lot easier than talking about difficult subjects like the economy. But what if everything liberals and bureaucrats think about happiness is wrong?

              Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz3boWMPFbe

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #22
                Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                Soaking The Rich Won't Make America Happy

                Politicians these days love to talk about “happiness.” For one thing, talking about happiness is a lot easier than talking about difficult subjects like the economy. But what if everything liberals and bureaucrats think about happiness is wrong?

                Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz3boWMPFbe
                THis article is stupid and either mischaracterizes the work it is based on or the work it is based on is garbage

                "According to Stevenson and Wolfers, a 20 percent increase in income has the same impact on happiness, regardless of the initial level of income: rising from $500 to $600 of income per year yields the same impact on well-being as rising from $50,000 to $60,000.
                When this evidence that money does buy happiness" - from the linked article above.
                So what's the point? that itks wrong to make 99% of the people happy because it would make 1% of the people less happy?

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #23
                  What he's saying is that if you take from the rich and give it to the poor, half of the population will still be richer than the median and half poorer and will still be unhappy and you would destroy the economy in the process. The government never professes taking from the rich and giving to the poor, it professes taking from the rich and giving it to politicians.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #24
                    The article clearly states raising anyones income by 20% makes them happier.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                      The article clearly states raising anyones income by 20% makes them happier.
                      Common sense, for if someone is on the line of having enough to meet all expenses, a 20 percent increase makes a tremendous difference.

                      Most people want something very basic. They want security, and it takes a certain wage in order to feel secure. While people might like to dream of what it would be like to be a millionaire, a billionaire, most people just really want security, which comes from having enough money to meet the bills, and enough to have a recreation of enjoyment, with enough left to save for old age so one doesn't have to suffer or rely upon their grown children for support. And that 20 percent could be the difference, in reality.

                      Yet we live in a society today, more so than ever, where the main employer of people is the traditional lower paying service sector. And so many of these jobs will not even pay a wage high enough to live on, to have any kind of physical security. And there is no excuse for that, none. We have divided work into low skill which we think should not pay a wage that is high enough to live on, and high skilled which we as a society think should pay well, and more than it takes to have security. There is something badly wrong with that paradigm of belief. For even those millions of so called low skilled jobs are essential to society operating smoothly with the garbage being picked up, and the trains to run on time. Yet we choose to deny a living wage, by trying to weasel out of it, by calling it low skilled, as if somehow it was not just as essential to the operation of society as the high skilled.

                      Yet when you can literaly become a millionaire, by owning 4 or 5 McDs, which does not pay a living wage, there is something horribly wrong with that picture. When you can be one of the wealthiest families in the us, billionaires, and you became one because you didn't pay your workers who made you that wealth a living wage, there is something horribly wrong with such a paradigm. For this paradigm is basically the exploitation of people who have to work in order to eat, so that you can be a billionaire. There is nothing ethical or moral about that, yet we allow it to go on. And we allow it to go on because we believe in some silly ass ideology that accepts it, and even demands it. That is the power of people who live a life grounded in some ideological belief, that was devised to benefit those at the top, the millionaires, the billionaires, with no concern for most of the people.

                      The system we live under is just predatory capitalism, which has been structured to make a few extremenly wealthy, and has not been structured to provide a society with enough in wages to actually live on. And so since people have to survive, as we do not want to see kids starving or people dying of exposure or simple illnesses, we subsidize these predatory capitalists with welfare, taken from those that work, and from the rich, who many make their fortunes playing with their money.

                      The sort of system we have today is destructive. Destructive of working people, destructive of a middle class, destructive to social order, and drives up gov't spending to address the very problems caused by this predatory capitalism that is by and large only sending more of the income pie to the top. So, if we have a 2 percent growth in GDP, the system is now structured, to send 99 percent of that to the top. This was done not accidently, but intentionally. And yet because of some silly ass ideological belief, some of us will accept it, and think that it is good, while blaming the people who got left out, for the disparity in income. And that is what conservatives tend to do. And it just seems to me that what the modern liberal wants to do is to keep subsidizing business with welfare for their workers, while not doing all they can to change the economic system that they helped to create which turned us into predatory capitalism. The only difference between the two parties on this issue is the dems want to take care of the victims of predatory capitalism, and the republicans do not want to take care of them. And neither one will ever do a thing to get rid of the kind of structured capitalism that is causing the problems, for they get donations to keep their seats of power, from these same predatory capitalists.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #26
                        I wonder why workers and poor feel cheated today?
                        1968
                        Cheeseburger 0.19, soda 0.10, fries 0.10
                        Minimum wage 1.60
                        Meal is 24% minimum wage (pertax)
                        2015
                        Cheeseburger 1.00, soda 1.39, fries 1.39
                        Minimum wage 7.25
                        Meal is 52% of minimum wage.(pretax)

                        So a minimum wage worker is paying over twice as much in 2015 relative to someone in 1968 for a simple fastfood meal and people wonder why they are not happy about it?

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #27
                          Why, just think of the votes the Republicans would get if they guaranteed every able bodied person a job. Just a basic job, enuf to pay the bare necessities so as not to kill motivation to move up, like Ben Franklin warned about.

                          Think the GOP will go there? No. Would the Dems pick up the slack? No.

                          Both won't go there because that would disengage the issue of poverty from the vote. The left loses votes in exchange for payments. The Pubs will fail employers, who would lose the suppressed wage that is helped by higher underemployment numbers.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                            Why, just think of the votes the Republicans would get if they guaranteed every able bodied person a job. Just a basic job, enuf to pay the bare necessities so as not to kill motivation to move up, like Ben Franklin warned about.

                            Think the GOP will go there? No. Would the Dems pick up the slack? No.

                            Both won't go there because that would disengage the issue of poverty from the vote. The left loses votes in exchange for payments. The Pubs will fail employers, who would lose the suppressed wage that is helped by higher underemployment numbers.

                            If the GOP made such a suggestion, the Dems, with their lackeys in the mainstream media would be howling about them trying to bring back slavery.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

                              Common sense, for if someone is on the line of having enough to meet all expenses, a 20 percent increase makes a tremendous difference.

                              Most people want something very basic. They want security, and it takes a certain wage in order to feel secure. While people might like to dream of what it would be like to be a millionaire, a billionaire, most people just really want security, which comes from having enough money to meet the bills, and enough to have a recreation of enjoyment, with enough left to save for old age so one doesn't have to suffer or rely upon their grown children for support. And that 20 percent could be the difference, in reality.
                              Agreed! We're recognizing that the 20% increase makes a big difference.

                              Recognize that the 20% in taxes being taken away from the moderate middle class citizen makes a big difference as well. Where those citizens would live a very basic life and feel secure with that 20% meeting the bills, are now those stressed out citizens that don't have enough money to make the bills.

                              What about them? How do you explain to them that it is better for them and their happiness to contribute to society 20% more of their income?
                              Last edited by CYDdharta; 06-02-2015, 10:22 PM. Reason: fixed quote box

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by JDJarvis View Post
                                I wonder why workers and poor feel cheated today?
                                1968
                                Cheeseburger 0.19, soda 0.10, fries 0.10
                                Minimum wage 1.60
                                Meal is 24% minimum wage (pertax)
                                2015
                                Cheeseburger 1.00, soda 1.39, fries 1.39
                                Minimum wage 7.25
                                Meal is 52% of minimum wage.(pretax)

                                So a minimum wage worker is paying over twice as much in 2015 relative to someone in 1968 for a simple fastfood meal and people wonder why they are not happy about it?

                                In 1968 I worked in a McDonalds in Buffalo New York for 50 cents an hour. I'm not sure where the minimum wage was $1.60.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X