On Sep 15, 4:35*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:33:50 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
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.

Never said anything about answering poverty.
Said jobs is the answer to welfare.
Only change I'll make is to change "jobs" to "decent-paying jobs."
Food stamps and Medicaid is welfare to me.
That's about doubled since this "recession" started.
Then I'll change "answer to that" to "answer to reducing that."
Just to keep your nitpicking ass happy.

You'll always have some poverty.
Unemployment is high, and poverty is up.
Charts always show that correlation.

Yes, there is a correlation. But poverty has varied
from between 12% and 15%. The point is this
recession or any recession has some effect on
poverty. It's risen to 15%, which is worse than the
40 year low of 12%, but obviously the core problem
of poverty is not recession or economy related.


Any stats you have above are bogus - too many variables in how
unemployment and poverty stats are tallied.

Figures you'd reject official measures of poverty
in favor of just making crap up as you go.



Besides that, low wage jobs still qualify people for welfare but don't
show up in the unemployment figures.
Decent paying jobs will knock it down to the usual levels.
Low-wage jobs for multiple wage-earner families will do the same.
Jobs and poverty is always related.

Yes, as I'll point out one more time, poverty in
this terrible recession is 15%. In the times of
a booming economy and full employment it was
12%. A relationship? Sure. The cause of most
poverty? No.

And where do you expect those decent paying
jobs to come from for people with little education
and no skills? That's the problem.

I was poor when I didn't have a job. *Don't know if I was counted.
That was in 1983.
Record unemployment and record poverty level under Ronald Reagan.

It was not record unemployment, nor record poverty. For
example the poverty rates in the 1950's were far higher.
And that was a time when better paying jobs were
available to the uneducated and unskilled.

Unemployment did briefly rise under Reagan as he
cleaned up the mess he inherited. Arguably as bad
as what Obama inherited. Inflation out of control,
high interest rates, and a stalling economy. The
difference which you obviously missed is that by
this time in the Reagan administration his economic
turnaround was well under way and new jobs were
being created. When he took office, unempoyment was
as 7.5%. When he left office unemployment was at 5.4%, inflation was
sharply reduced and interest rates had been cut in half. America's
respect in the world was restored
and he won the cold war without firing a shot.



That's when "street people" began appearing all over downtown Chicago.
Go find a moron to tell that high unemployment is unrelated to welfare
and poverty. *Won't work with me.

One more time. I never said it was unrelated, only
that poverty rises slightly because of it. As for morons,
I gave you numbers for poverty based on actual
govt data. Data that economists use. What data
to you have on poverty?




Got no idea why you call it a myth, and won't be rude in speculating.
You're the first person I've ever encountered who says not having a
job is unrelated to poverty.
Everybody else knows better.

What I called a myth is that most poverty is caused
by a lack of jobs and that jobs being available will
cure it.



Without high unemployment pushing it up, poverty gets little press.
Might not matter now, with Xboxes and cable TV making it acceptable.
According to the Heritage Foundation anyway.



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?

I'd rather they were working and paying $300 for the A/C, or going
without, than living off public money.

Follow your ideas and we all will be paying $300 for that
AC and most of those in poverty will still be in poverty.
Poverty was much higher in the 1950's for example
when the makeup of the economy was more to your
liking, ie good jobs for the uneductated and unskilled.



Productive work is good for the soul, and the economy.
Doing it your way just leads to more people on welfare.
That's exactly what's happening right now.
And it's going to get worse.
So don't complain when you get it your way.

What good jobs would your propose for people who
are uneducated and unskilled?



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.

I proposed nothing except taking a whip to the free traders who think
shipping 50,000 factories to China in the last decade was a good idea.
Al Gore used that Smoot-Hawley argument to get NAFTA passed.
Usual "free trader" ploy.
Of course nobody was talking about Smoot-Hawley to Gore, and I didn't
mention it here either.
BTW, Milton Friedman disagrees with you about the effect of trade
barriers on the Great Depression.



I'd like to see the reference for that claim.





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.

I'll bet you bitched big time when the Republican Congress
forced Clinton to "end welfare as we know it." Yet that
change which was supposed to be a disasster according
to the libs was an overwhelming success. It helped end
30 years of having one generation after another on the
welfare dole.




Poverty went from 13% to 15% from this recession. *Clearly,
linking the vast majority of poverty to the availability of jobs
is nonsense.

You sound just like Al Gore, with his Smoot-Hawley.
Nobody mentioned "vast majority" except you.
Haven't I already taught you that your Al Gore bull**** don't work
with me?


I thinnk it's obvious that Al Gore's thinking and party
affiliation is a lot closer to yours than mine.





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.

Google it. *As I recall you can find state stats on Walmart, Kroger,
et al *employees on Medicaid and stamps.
I remember seeing it for Ohio and maybe Alabama.

In other words, despite throwing around claims, you
have no data.



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,

I'm retired, no mortgage, have plenty of money in the bank, two
pensions counting SS, and good health insurance.
My kids are all working with good jobs and insurance.
Why would I be ****ed?
Doesn't mean I don't want other Americans getting jobs.
*It's just natural. *I'm an American. * A vet even. *Good citizen..
Seems you're the one with his panties in a wad.
What got you? *Walmart living off socialism?

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.

You never saw me say anything good about Obama.
He's just another Wall Street yuppie to me.
Like you, he thinks free trade is good because people can buy cheap
goods, even if it's put them on welfare.
Surrounded himself with Bush people.

Now that shows how out of touch you are.
Where exactly did that fact come from?
Names of those Bush people please.