On Sep 14, 3:46*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 12:00:59 -0700, "Bob F"
wrote:
Steve B wrote:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2011/09...ative-think-ta....
Where exactly in the definition of poor does it say thay can't have anything?
It's hard to believe human beings can be as self-centered (I've got mine - screw
you)as what I keep seeing here.
Would you rather they don't get cable, and spend their evenings roaming your
neighborhood looking for entertainment of different sorts?
Think about it.
The poor have these toys.
Xbox, cable TV, microwaves, cars, etc.
So that means they're not poor.
There are no poor people!
Pretty easy to see the motive here.
Cut government spending on poor people however possible.
Because they aren't poor!
I don't like spending on "welfare" myself.
But the answer to that is jobs.
Another myth easily busted. The poverty rate today is just slightly
higher than it was before. It's varied from about 12% to 15% over
the last 40 years through boom or bust. It's also just about where
it was before Johnson declared war on poverty and the govt spent
trillions on welfare over the next 40 years. So, if the economy
were at full employment, instead of 15% you'd have 13%. Better?
Yes. But the answer to poverty? No way.
The problem with that is to get good jobs back here requires taking a
whip to the "free trade" principles these guys got rich from.
Not that Obama is any better, being surrounded by Wall Streeters.
You need to look at the other side of the equation. Today that
family living in poverty can buy an air conditioner for $100. If
it and all the other cheap things that can be bought from abroad
cost twice that because we erect trade barriers, are they going
to be better off or worse off?
Also, I think everyone pretty much agrees that one thing that
made the Great Depression worse was passing trade barriers
trying to do exactly what you propose.
So outfits like the Heritage Foundation are fighting a losing battle
anyway.
America will always take care of the poor to prevent rioting and
subsequent "socialism," and just become more of a welfare state until
jobs come back.
Poverty went from 13% to 15% from this recession. Clearly,
linking the vast majority of poverty to the availability of jobs
is nonsense.
Look at the food stamp program.
Walmart is the biggest employer in the U.S.
Check out how many Walmart employees are on food stamps.
And Medicaid.
You think Walmart wants food stamps to go away?
The big "capitalist" is a living example of "socialism."
hehe.
--Vic
I'd be interested in seeing data on how many Walmart employees are on
food stamps and Medicaid. You have it? It really doesn't matter, as
there will always be people on govt programs working part-time in
minimum wage jobs for one reason or another.
BTW, since you're so ****ed off about jobs, what about what Obama
is doing to Boeing? Unlike the simple research article that has your
shorts in a knot, which really affects nothing,
the Obama administration is doing everything it can
to block Boeing from opening it's plant in SC to build parts for the
new 787. They are doing it because a union in WA state claims
Boeing built the $1 bil plant there to retaliate for a strike years
ago.
Nice job, no? Screw around not only with the jobs in SC, but also
those of the entire 787 program throughout this country and the world.
Then Obama complains when companies like Boeing move jobs
overseas.