Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The "poor" live like kings in this country off the work of the productive and they always want more. Screw them and screw the politicians that give it to them; easy to be generous with other peoples money after all.
Thanks for providing a ridiculously self-serving rationalization, rife with vacuous, vitriolic stereotyping and broad-brush generalizations devoid of factual integrity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dooleys1300
LOL....You're accusing me of whining
Yes. I respect your right to try to deceive yourself into thinking that your empty comments have legitimacy.
What neither of you seem to understand is that avoiding the moral issues doesn't actually make what you support moral - quite the opposite.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
I think you'd see that the dramatic rise in single parent households over the same period correlates, and more importantly is like to be a direct cause of the increase in poverty.
"Direct" cause? No, not likely. Such slight-of-hand "analysis" you're using could be used to readily lead to a conclusion that one cause of poverty is the promulgation of equal rights for women, since that is correlated with the rise in single parenthood. The fact that this is substantially "accurate" (as a natural projection of the "logic" you were applying to make your conclusion) doesn't evade the reality that that conclusion fosters a distinctly immoral perspective, i.e., the marginalization of women contrary to their own vision for their own lives. The reality is that society was unjust, in that specific manner (as well as others). That was remedied. Combined with the correction of several other injustices (including, most notably, how globalization has relieved some of the injustice inherent in our nation's exploitation of the resources of other nations through threat of force) we have the recipe for increasing poverty. That does not excuse the prior injustices nor rationalizes the idea that those injustices should be restored.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTAtech
That's not macroeconomics. That's trashanomics.
Yes, that's really the best word I could imagine for it: There is a lot of trash-talking by right-wingers, aimed at trying to excuse the immoral perspectives that the right-wing advocates.
Yes. I respect your right to try to deceive yourself into thinking that your empty comments have legitimacy.
What neither of you seem to understand is that avoiding the moral issues doesn't actually make what you support moral - quite the opposite.
Well bright boy, if you had bothered to read the whole thread you might have seen where I state my moral beliefs about Conservatism in general.
I just have no interest in reiterating them just for you in an wasted effort to pander to your text book, "blame the evil right wing rich people for all of the ills of society" mentality that you pull directly from the Saul Alinsky school of thumb sucking.
...your text book, "blame the evil right wing rich people for all of the ills of society" mentality that you pull directly from the Saul Alinsky school of thumb sucking.
What I don't understand is how they can allow themselves to be so duped. Are they honestly under the impression that there are no rich on the left?
That's not macroeconomics. That's trashanomics. When consumers, including the poor, buy things that's demand, and demand creates jobs and economic activity.
The "poor" are not spending their money. They're spending other peoples money.
That means nothing if you do not add the "greed equation" to it. Just because the wealthy aremaking more money than ever before does not mean that they are going to help anyone else. It sounds to me that you fell for the "trickle down theory" pushed by the Reaganites in the early 80's
Sigh.
What is "wealthy"? I make about 180k/year, if I wasn't taxed so much I could afford to spend more money and distribute my wealth that way.
If I redo my bathroom (on my list) the guys I hire get paid, the suppliers of the materials get paid, their employees get paid, the shippers involved in moving the goods get paid, and the economy as a whole prospers.
THIS IS HOW AN ECONOMY WORKS. Supply and demand is still the go to economic model. A redistributionist model is wholly inefficient and counter-productive.
See also: Detroit.
When the government takes my money to give to "poor" people, what does it get spent on? Malt liquor and lottery tickets? How does this create wealth?
I make about 180k/year, if I wasn't taxed so much I could afford to spend more money and distribute my wealth that way.
that isn't wealth, that is income.
Quote:
If I redo my bathroom (on my list) the guys I hire get paid, the suppliers of the materials get paid, their employees get paid, the shippers involved in moving the goods get paid, and the economy as a whole prospers.
THIS IS HOW AN ECONOMY WORKS. Supply and demand is still the go to economic model. A redistributionist model is wholly inefficient and counter-productive.
See also: Detroit.
When the government takes my money to give to "poor" people, what does it get spent on? Malt liquor and lottery tickets? How does this create wealth?
wealth is created whenever existing resources are re-allocated in a more productive manner.
i'd say that from a macroeconomic perspective, the lottery tickets are actually more productive than your bathroom renovations (which is a luxury consumption item). the lottery tickets at least go back to a state's tax base, typically used for education.
Thanks for providing a ridiculously self-serving rationalization, rife with vacuous, vitriolic stereotyping and broad-brush generalizations devoid of factual integrity.
You're really denying politicians (some would say an entire political party) have secured dominance by promising and delivering the wealth of others?
So easy to be generous with other folks money....you can bet those "we care about the poor" Democrats are using every single loophole imaginable to not pay their "fair share".
Wasn't something like 90% of Obamas first cabinet delinquent on taxes?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
