Admit it Dems: Ryan scares the shit out of you

[apple0154]

so basically, your previous post was meaningless?......

That old reading comprehension problem cropping up again, huh? Go back and re-read it and let me know if you're still having problems.

 

[apple0154]

Not necessarily. Believe it or not, Medical insurance is not a required under law at this point for employers to cover. It is a benefit. In a slow economy where there are more people looking for jobs, employers may offer a position to desperate people that does not include Medical coverage, or that the coverage is so useless, and expensive that it may not be effective for the employee to purchase. So, no. Just because someone has a job, doesn't mean that they have health coverage.

To which I was referring. The people who were looking, those who currently have jobs, have lousy jobs.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Or cut other government expenses whether it’s the military or aid to other countries or space missions or national parks or a tax-back scheme..whatever it takes to ensure the needs of those who have the least have enough to live on.

Again, why does "the government" get a pass on doing what we sent Enron officials to jail for? You've not explained that part of your reasoning here. Our money was stolen from the SS trust fund by politicians, just like Enron's employees were bilked out of their retirements. Only, with the government, you expect us to all swallow the shit sandwich and move on, just raise our taxes some more and forget that we had our retirements stolen! I'm sure the people we sent to prison for Enron would have loved to have had the opportunity to 'make things right again' by docking people's paychecks a little and repaying the stolen money over time... we didn't give them that option, why do you think it should be acceptable to make this exception for the government?

A retired family requires a new fridge. At one time the different parts were assembled by hand and the job was labor intensive so it required, say, three people. Today, it’s automated so it requires two people. We only have to pay two people today, not three. Therefore, it’s easier to supply the family with a fridge. The same idea applies to almost everything else.

I would argue it's not easier or less expensive. Today, refrigerator manufacturers have to meet all kinds of federal requirements for Energy-Star compliance and everything from the plastics and metals down to the Freon used, must meet government regulation and be accounted for. So this takes an enormous amount more manpower to comply with, and is much more expensive. Plus, those two employees who are now doing the job of 3, regardless of the increase in efficiency, their unions demanded their pay be increased to compensate for the 'extra person' which was cut. So they are still costing the same amount.

And what the fuck do you mean "we can supply" ...the government doesn't own the refrigerator company! They can't tell the company they have to supply their product to people for no cost or at low cost. That's not how capitalism works.

As I mentioned before the government could buy up abandoned warehouses in inner city areas and turn them into small apartments. The seniors would be near all services and the difference in the rent could be deducted from their SS. The seniors would require less money, the government would save money, those who had additional income would have their government SS taxed back on a sliding scale…..there are many ways to ensure retirees are looked after but one's basic attitude has to change.

The government is not going to save money renovating old warehouses into apartments, Apple, don't be ridiculous! No telling how many BILLIONS you are talking about, and we don't even have the fucking money to pay them their basic retirement pensions! You are totally full of all these imaginative programs and grandiose plans we could do, but we don't have a dime to do them with. The money has been spent already, we are $15 trillion in the hole at this time. You don't seem to want to comprehend that fact, but it's still a fact. Currently, the INTEREST on our debt is one of our most expensive budget items. This is only going to get worse until we pay down our debt.

Often volunteers are paid for their expenses. For example, if one volunteers to drive seniors to doctor’s appointments they are reimbursed for their gas. There would be a lot more volunteers if they were paid an honorarium. (And folks wonder why some of my posts are lengthy and go into detail.)

What are you trying to dance around your idiotic statement from before? You were bitching because poor volunteers at hospitals aren't being paid, while we shower the Pet Rock guy with wealth! Well Apple, volunteers are not EVER going to be paid, under ANY system in our known universe or reality, because they would no loner be volunteers if they were. I've never seen someone so bullheaded about admitting they misspoke. This is absolutely stunning!

The only thing dangerous and stupid is how you miscomprehend what I wrote. The context was within how society glorifies the wealthy along with honoring them regarding their hard work. Look, there’s only 24 hours in a day. How hard can someone work? And if it’s just a matter of hard work tell us what job to do and millions of people will do it and become wealthy. If it has nothing to do with luck and circumstance and the fickle finger of fate then spit out the EXACT things to do and we’ll all do it.

I just took your point about "work that is of benefit to society" and carried it to the next logical step, that's not misconstruing anything or taking anything out of context. That is applying your stupidity to the real world, and then slapping your in your stupid face with it.

Again... I have never said a thing about "it's just a matter of hard work!" ...where did I ever say that? All I did was point out another fact of life to you, that some people are more motivated than others to become wealthy. It doesn't have anything to do with fickle fingers of fate or luck or fortune, it's a matter of some people having the motivation and determination to not be poor, to succeed and gain wealth. I can't tell you what job, because there are MILLIONS of them! It depends on the individual and their motivation.

No crap like the average internet work at home schemes. No pseudo-psychological babble like, “find something you’re interested in”. I’m interested in women but pimping is frowned upon so I’m kinda stuck for ideas. I was considering purchasing and operating a home for wayward prostitutes but I’ve been kicked out of too many mortgage lender’s offices to pursue that any further. Any suggestions?

Find something you are interested in, which is legal, that you can make money doing, that consumers will pay for.

Oh, you flatterer, you! The truth is I had no idea values would increase like they did. I intended to spend the rest of my life in the first building I purchased. Not far from downtown. Two blocks to the subway. A shopping strip a block away. The water front and park and bike path at the end of the street, less than ½ a block away. And a second building two blocks away on the same street. I was all set to remain a slumlord to my dying day.

Then one evening we saw a newscast saying how land values had increased in that section of the city and developers had moved in. Before I knew it I would wake up in the middle of the night to the sound of the Mrs. on the computer pounding those keys. A boyfriend? A sordid affair? Nope. Looking for a house in suburbia. It was time to sell she told me. It was time to take the money and retire in suburbia. But I suppose I could tell people how hard I worked, how I sacrificed, how the less fortunate are really lazy bums and deserve nothing but scorn. I could become a RICO: Republican in Canada Only.

And there you are! You found your niche in being a slumlord! You capitalized on a need from a certain group of consumer, and you made profits from it. In the end, you sold your property which had increased in value, to another capitalist who maybe had a bigger and better plan to make money, but again, you benefited from choices you made to invest in the property. You didn't work hard, but you were not paid for hard work, you were paid for value of what you possessed, which you made the decision to buy and own.

But here again, you and Obama seek to make it more difficult for people to do what you did. You want them to have more regulations and mandates heaped on them, because they have been demonized as the "greedy rich" and need to pay their fair share! You want to tax them out the wazoo, and make it virtually impossible for them to keep any profits from such ventures.

Nobody is talking about becoming wealthy. The point is poverty. There is no excuse to have people living in poverty, in the US., to the degree that it is. No one should go hungry. No family with school age children should be subjected to living conditions that involve 4 or 5 people in a motel room.

But again... we have been doing things your way for nearly 70 years, and here you are telling me, things are terrible! There is no excuse for how bad it is out there! But we've been doing exactly the kinds of things you think will "HELP" people! Is it not sinking into that thick head, that just maybe we aren't doing the right thing? That just maybe the past 70 years of socialist policy wasn't the best idea? If something is not working, do you change what you are doing, or do you continue to cling to the failed idea for political sake?

Taxed to death? Are you mad, as in insane? Have you ever compared the tax rates to other countries? And where did the new car idea come from? Let me guess. A dark place?

Nope, I am just saying.. you want for all these poor needy people to be helped because society looks down upon them, and I am just pointing out that society will still look down upon them if they didn't earn or deserve what they have. You can shower them with all you like, it won't change societal perceptions, it will just make the stigma worse. It's a MUCH better plan to encourage them and give them opportunities to escape poverty and do things for themselves. But again... You and Obama are too busy erecting roadblocks to that!

So would you be in favor of citizens being obliged to contribute to charity? Or do you believe people have no obligation to help others?

No, I don't favor any sort of mandatory law obligating citizens to contribute to charity. I believe it should be a personal choice, and I encourage everyone to do this, because it is just basic good citizenship.

 

[j-mac]

Believe it or not, I routinely agree with Free, however in this case, while it is clear that it is possible that some attendees at job fairs are actually employed, the likelyhood is that the vast majority are not, contrary to his contrarian claim, so, no, I am not agreeing with Free.

Feel free to misinterpret this statement in any way you see fit.

You mean like you do with your sig line? Nah, I don't stoop down to your level...

 

[j-mac]

To which I was referring. The people who were looking, those who currently have jobs, have lousy jobs.

But isn't that what you and others argue is the 'new norm'? Something we just need to get used to?

 

[Rune]

You mean like you do with your sig line? Nah, I don't stoop down to your level...

Feel free to explain how you misinterpret my sig line.

 

[apple0154]

Again, why does "the government" get a pass on doing what we sent Enron officials to jail for? You've not explained that part of your reasoning here. Our money was stolen from the SS trust fund by politicians, just like Enron's employees were bilked out of their retirements. Only, with the government, you expect us to all swallow the shit sandwich and move on, just raise our taxes some more and forget that we had our retirements stolen! I'm sure the people we sent to prison for Enron would have loved to have had the opportunity to 'make things right again' by docking people's paychecks a little and repaying the stolen money over time... we didn't give them that option, why do you think it should be acceptable to make this exception for the government?

Well, it’s like this my naïve friend. Governments make laws and laws can be changed. That means it was lawful for the government to spend your retirement money and unlawful for the folks at Enron to do so. However, and this is a BIG however, the government can also replace the money with the stroke of a pen. That’s something Enron could not do.

I would argue it's not easier or less expensive. Today, refrigerator manufacturers have to meet all kinds of federal requirements for Energy-Star compliance and everything from the plastics and metals down to the Freon used, must meet government regulation and be accounted for. So this takes an enormous amount more manpower to comply with, and is much more expensive. Plus, those two employees who are now doing the job of 3, regardless of the increase in efficiency, their unions demanded their pay be increased to compensate for the 'extra person' which was cut. So they are still costing the same amount.

I would say automation has reduced costs more than regulation has increased them. In any case if a company is utilizing a procedure that is harmful surely you agree it must stop doing so.

And what the fuck do you mean "we can supply" ...the government doesn't own the refrigerator company! They can't tell the company they have to supply their product to people for no cost or at low cost. That's not how capitalism works.

The government can place a large order (volume discount) and ensure the poor have a proper fridge.

The government is not going to save money renovating old warehouses into apartments, Apple, don't be ridiculous! No telling how many BILLIONS you are talking about, and we don't even have the fucking money to pay them their basic retirement pensions! You are totally full of all these imaginative programs and grandiose plans we could do, but we don't have a dime to do them with. The money has been spent already, we are $15 trillion in the hole at this time. You don't seem to want to comprehend that fact, but it's still a fact. Currently, the INTEREST on our debt is one of our most expensive budget items. This is only going to get worse until we pay down our debt.

The money spent would be recouped as I explained before. Let’s take a person who has only SS to live on. None or little extra savings/investments. They need a place to live. (The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012. http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/ans...-social-security-benefit-for-a-retired-worker) The government can send a retiree a SS check for $1230 of which they may pay their landlord $500 for rent. That leaves $730 for the month. Or the government could offer the retiree an option and supply a place to live and send the retiree a check for, say, $800. That means the retiree is paying $430 for rent. (Are you following along?)

The government could get a 15 year fixed mortgage rate for less than 3%. (http://www.imontgomerymortgage.com/Contact-a-loan-officers.aspx?gclid=CPul85qG-7ECFQjc4AodAxsAmw) That means the government could spend $90,000 on a dwelling, finance it over 25 years with a 15 year fixed rate at a cost of $426.79/mth. To start with the retiree gets a brand new apartment (one bedroom). They receive an extra $70/mth. The government has a guaranteed renter who is paying the mortgage. In 25 years the government will own every apartment building that it had built.

Twenty-five years for now the government can either sell all the buildings to the capitalists or cut SS and offer the retirees a place to live. The poor who require a place to live will be looked after and the wealthy not requiring a place to live will receive the same reduced SS amount. So, costs go down and the poor are looked after. Are you on board with the plan?

What are you trying to dance around your idiotic statement from before? You were bitching because poor volunteers at hospitals aren't being paid, while we shower the Pet Rock guy with wealth! Well Apple, volunteers are not EVER going to be paid, under ANY system in our known universe or reality, because they would no loner be volunteers if they were. I've never seen someone so bullheaded about admitting they misspoke. This is absolutely stunning!

What’s stunning is how dense you are. My point was people like the “Rock Guy” are held up as heroes/role models/people to emulate when society should be focusing on those who do volunteer work. And people wonder why my posts occasionally go on and on. I have to spell out and explain every single thing.

I just took your point about "work that is of benefit to society" and carried it to the next logical step, that's not misconstruing anything or taking anything out of context. That is applying your stupidity to the real world, and then slapping your in your stupid face with it.

Again... I have never said a thing about "it's just a matter of hard work!" ...where did I ever say that? All I did was point out another fact of life to you, that some people are more motivated than others to become wealthy. It doesn't have anything to do with fickle fingers of fate or luck or fortune, it's a matter of some people having the motivation and determination to not be poor, to succeed and gain wealth. I can't tell you what job, because there are MILLIONS of them! It depends on the individual and their motivation.

More bull crap! A paragraph of talking points with absolutely no specifics. “More motivated.” “Determined to succeed.” Have you been hanging out at Tony Robbins’ motivational seminars? You claim you never say the poor are lazy but then you write stuff like “It doesn't have anything to do with fickle fingers of fate or luck or fortune, it's a matter of some people having the motivation and determination to not be poor..” So, the poor aren’t lazy. They’re just not motivated. Is that it? Does that mean the poor don’t give a damn if they eat or not? Does that mean the poor don’t care if they have no heat in the winter or live in a run-down tenement? What, exactly, are you implying? Surely you’re not suggesting our concern over the poor is misplaced as the poor really don’t mind being poor……Oh, wait. I bet that is exactly what you’re saying, isn’t it? If we increased their poverty, really made them suffer, they might become more motivated. Is that the Dixie solution?

Find something you are interested in, which is legal, that you can make money doing, that consumers will pay for.

You just couldn’t resist, could you? Just another standard talking point.

And there you are! You found your niche in being a slumlord! You capitalized on a need from a certain group of consumer, and you made profits from it. In the end, you sold your property which had increased in value, to another capitalist who maybe had a bigger and better plan to make money, but again, you benefited from choices you made to invest in the property. You didn't work hard, but you were not paid for hard work, you were paid for value of what you possessed, which you made the decision to buy and own.

But here again, you and Obama seek to make it more difficult for people to do what you did. You want them to have more regulations and mandates heaped on them, because they have been demonized as the "greedy rich" and need to pay their fair share! You want to tax them out the wazoo, and make it virtually impossible for them to keep any profits from such ventures.

I’m going to start keeping copies of what I post as the conversation inevitably comes back around. That way I can just copy and paste answers.

When I sold one of my buildings a friend of mine commented I must be pissed off at all the capital gains tax I had to pay. (We pay that tax here.) “Why would it bother me”, I asked him. The value of the building increased through no effort on my part. None. Zero. I did absolutely nothing to increase the value besides doing the general upkeep. I received the money for nothing. Why would I complain about paying taxes on money I received through no effort of my own? What reason could justify my getting upset other than sheer greed?

But again... we have been doing things your way for nearly 70 years, and here you are telling me, things are terrible! There is no excuse for how bad it is out there! But we've been doing exactly the kinds of things you think will "HELP" people! Is it not sinking into that thick head, that just maybe we aren't doing the right thing? That just maybe the past 70 years of socialist policy wasn't the best idea? If something is not working, do you change what you are doing, or do you continue to cling to the failed idea for political sake?

Things could be a lot better but you draw the wrong conclusion. Things are better today than they were for the elderly before SS. Things are better today for those entitled to Medicare and Medicaid than they were for the folks who lived prior to those programs. The problem with the programs is not what we’re doing. The problem is the programs don’t do enough. The things they do have helped a lot. It’s just that more has to be done.

When programs were initiated in the 30s food and shelter were the main markers of poverty. Many not-so-poor didn’t have a car or TV set or a computer or the myriad other things the average individual has today so lifting someone out of poverty consisted of supplying funds for food and shelter. That is not the case today. Children need a computer for their education. We know people have to eat certain foods in order to be healthy and some are expensive. It’s cheaper to give child a $0.99 hamburger than a nutritious salad and that’s what happens. And how can kids study when there are 4 or 5 people living in a one room motel?

Social programs have to do more than just keep people at the survival level and remember that Medicare and Medicaid and welfare had nothing to do with the mess we’re in today. They had nothing to do with jobs moving overseas or investment companies going belly up. I wonder what type of political system led to that???

Nope, I am just saying.. you want for all these poor needy people to be helped because society looks down upon them, and I am just pointing out that society will still look down upon them if they didn't earn or deserve what they have. You can shower them with all you like, it won't change societal perceptions, it will just make the stigma worse. It's a MUCH better plan to encourage them and give them opportunities to escape poverty and do things for themselves. But again... You and Obama are too busy erecting roadblocks to that!

I hope you’re not referring to the trickle down idea. The entire concept is absurd. Anything that trickles down is not wanted by the person doing the trickling nor the recipient. Encourage the people all you want but ensure their basic needs are met while doing the encouraging. Of course, we have some folks who are against the unemployed attending classes/school because why should they pay for someone’s education. They claim they want to help but I suppose helping someone improve their prospects for employment is too much help.

No, I don't favor any sort of mandatory law obligating citizens to contribute to charity. I believe it should be a personal choice, and I encourage everyone to do this, because it is just basic good citizenship.

The typical Repub position. Right back where we started. Just like health care. The Repubs want everyone to have health insurance but are against any and every way that would ensure such happening. The same old, tired, worn out ideas.

 

[apple0154]

But isn't that what you and others argue is the 'new norm'? Something we just need to get used to?

It will be the new norm for a while as society is changing. That's why medical insurance/coverage has to be separate from jobs. That's why a whole new way of dealing with medical care is so important. Furthermore, with the financial uncertainty medical care has to be placed on the government "must do" list. If left at the bottom of the list to be discussed and negotiated and financially planned out after all the other programs are considered then we can be sure nothing will happen.

The best part is statistics show that every country (no exception) with a government plan saves at least 1/3 of the costs compared to the US. It will ultimately be a money savor and the most important aspect of a government plan is the citizens in every country with such a plan not only approve of it but insist the government keep it. Again, not one exception.

That's why I can't understand the opposition to it. There is nothing to show it's not a good idea. In every country the citizens approve, the plan saves money and longevity is equal to or greater than in the US. What is there not to like?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Well, it’s like this my naïve friend. Governments make laws and laws can be changed. That means it was lawful for the government to spend your retirement money and unlawful for the folks at Enron to do so. However, and this is a BIG however, the government can also replace the money with the stroke of a pen. That’s something Enron could not do.

Ahh... so we finally get to the bottom of things! With my capitalist free market system, crooks can, and are, sent to jail for theft... in your government-run system, the Gub just changes the laws to make it legal to steal our money! And your system is better, why again?

It seems you have exchanged a system where the "1%" work within the law to attain wealth by capitalist trade of goods and services, for a system where the "1%" make the laws and can do anything they damn well please. Again... I vote for MY system!

I would say automation has reduced costs more than regulation has increased them. In any case if a company is utilizing a procedure that is harmful surely you agree it must stop doing so.

Yes, you would say that, because you are an idiot who doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about.

The government can place a large order (volume discount) and ensure the poor have a proper fridge.

Are the poor dying because they lack proper refrigeration now? Is that next on the horizon after you cement health care?

We have no money, so let's see... 50 million people in poverty, times about $1k each for a fridge, that's about $50 billion more we'll need to borrow from the Communist Chinese. Money that we'll never be able to repay because less people are working now, as you say.

But we MUST do this, because our Constitution states that it's government's responsibility to provide everyone with a refrigerator!

The money spent would be recouped as I explained before.

No, you've never explained this. You've explained how we're never going to regain the lost employment, and how everyone doesn't need to work. You've suggested cutting the funding of our military and raising taxes on the few remaining employed. This doesn't add up to $15 trillion, you still have a long way to go.

Let’s take a person who has only SS to live on. None or little extra savings/investments. They need a place to live. (The average monthly Social Security benefit for a retired worker was about $1,230 at the beginning of 2012. http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/ans...-social-security-benefit-for-a-retired-worker) The government can send a retiree a SS check for $1230 of which they may pay their landlord $500 for rent. That leaves $730 for the month. Or the government could offer the retiree an option and supply a place to live and send the retiree a check for, say, $800. That means the retiree is paying $430 for rent. (Are you following along?)

I am calculating another $70-100 billion per year that we'll need to borrow from Communists. Then what's next? Won't they need some furniture and belongings to go in their new homes? Maybe a Barbie Dream Car? ...Oh wait, I forgot, we're not playing Barbies!

What’s stunning is how dense you are. My point was people like the “Rock Guy” are held up as heroes/role models/people to emulate when society should be focusing on those who do volunteer work. And people wonder why my posts occasionally go on and on. I have to spell out and explain every single thing.

Again... Doesn't matter what kind of system we have, or how much focus we put on them, VOLUNTEERS don't get paid. You've still not explained this, you just keep twisting in the wind, that's why your posts are getting longer and longer. As for understanding you, I think we all need to trip on acid, so that we can get to the 'reality' you live in.

More bull crap! A paragraph of talking points with absolutely no specifics. “More motivated.” “Determined to succeed.” Have you been hanging out at Tony Robbins’ motivational seminars? You claim you never say the poor are lazy but then you write stuff like “It doesn't have anything to do with fickle fingers of fate or luck or fortune, it's a matter of some people having the motivation and determination to not be poor..” So, the poor aren’t lazy. They’re just not motivated. Is that it?

Pretty much, that's it. Yes!

Does that mean the poor don’t give a damn if they eat or not?

They don't have to worry about it, you're going to feed them! You have been doing that for 70 years, why would they worry?

I said they lack motivation!

Does that mean the poor don’t care if they have no heat in the winter or live in a run-down tenement?

Again, why would they worry? You are going to make sure they have heat and a decent roof over their heads!

I said they lack motivation!

What, exactly, are you implying?

That poor people are less motivated to become wealthy people, than those who become wealthy. I've not implied it, I have stated it outright, about a dozen times or more in this thread. You are apparently not listening very well.

Surely you’re not suggesting our concern over the poor is misplaced as the poor really don’t mind being poor……Oh, wait. I bet that is exactly what you’re saying, isn’t it? If we increased their poverty, really made them suffer, they might become more motivated. Is that the Dixie solution?

Well your solution sure hasn't worked. Making their life more comfortable isn't serving to motivate them. I don't know how else to put it, it's not a matter of them "minding" being poor, it's that they are often content to remain poor, and let you take care of their needs. They lack the motivation to do better, and you are enabling them.

My solution would we 'work-for-welfare' programs, where no one gets a free handout, and anyone who needs a hand up can get it. This really isn't about the cost or saving money, it's about the principle and motivation. Unless we find a way to motivate the poor, they will remain, as they have the past 70 years, in poverty. Showering them with stuff isn't going to ever fix this problem, Apple.

You just couldn’t resist, could you? Just another standard talking point.

No talking point, just common practical sense. You asked, and I answered. Now you can choose to ridicule my answer if you so desire, but you've not refuted my answer, nor have you refuted any point I have made thus far. You just keep swinging for the fences to no avail, and striking out miserably...but don't let that deter you!

I’m going to start keeping copies of what I post as the conversation inevitably comes back around. That way I can just copy and paste answers.

Why not? It's what most of your fellow libs have resorted to... just keep parroting the same nonsense over and over like a broken record... that's having an intelligent dialogue, isn't it?

When I sold one of my buildings a friend of mine commented I must be pissed off at all the capital gains tax I had to pay. (We pay that tax here.) “Why would it bother me”, I asked him. The value of the building increased through no effort on my part. None. Zero. I did absolutely nothing to increase the value besides doing the general upkeep. I received the money for nothing. Why would I complain about paying taxes on money I received through no effort of my own? What reason could justify my getting upset other than sheer greed?

You didn't receive the money for nothing. You benefited from your knowledge and wisdom (something that should give every moron on the planet hope!) and gained wealth because you had the foresight to invest in a good piece of real estate. If there is ever an example of how utterly easy it is to become successful in a capitalist free market society, you are it! You prove the point! If an abject moron such as yourself, can stumble into wealth through investment, then ANYONE can do it... even a caveman!

Things could be a lot better but you draw the wrong conclusion. Things are better today than they were for the elderly before SS. Things are better today for those entitled to Medicare and Medicaid than they were for the folks who lived prior to those programs. The problem with the programs is not what we’re doing. The problem is the programs don’t do enough. The things they do have helped a lot. It’s just that more has to be done.

Helped a lot? Really? But we have people dying and starving and suffering Apple... did they die and starve with more suffering before? I'm not getting it... first you claim the conditions are deplorable and inexcusable, and people are suffering... then you tell me it's better than it was before. We're currently on the hook for over $140 trillion in unfunded liability. It seems to me there should be some margin of difference in the conditions of suffering, hunger and dying, that things should be looking up... but you say we need to spend more. I just disagree, if our spending the kind of money we've spent, hasn't resulted in anything more than it has, we need to objectively evaluate the plan, because something isn't working. Seems you haven't really helped the conditions in 70 years of trying, and it's a fool's dream to believe that more of the same is going to make a difference.

When programs were initiated in the 30s food and shelter were the main markers of poverty. Many not-so-poor didn’t have a car or TV set or a computer or the myriad other things the average individual has today so lifting someone out of poverty consisted of supplying funds for food and shelter. That is not the case today. Children need a computer for their education. We know people have to eat certain foods in order to be healthy and some are expensive. It’s cheaper to give child a $0.99 hamburger than a nutritious salad and that’s what happens. And how can kids study when there are 4 or 5 people living in a one room motel?

So what I am hearing you say is, people's basic essential needs evolve over time, and it now takes more to relieve the suffering? Well let's see... by 2082, poor people are going to need G5 private jets to tool around in like rich people, otherwise, they will be unmercifully suffering and dying in the streets! How could we live in such a cruel world?

Social programs have to do more than just keep people at the survival level and remember that Medicare and Medicaid and welfare had nothing to do with the mess we’re in today. They had nothing to do with jobs moving overseas or investment companies going belly up. I wonder what type of political system led to that???

The kind that meddles in capitalist enterprise when it shouldn't?

I hope you’re not referring to the trickle down idea. The entire concept is absurd. Anything that trickles down is not wanted by the person doing the trickling nor the recipient. Encourage the people all you want but ensure their basic needs are met while doing the encouraging. Of course, we have some folks who are against the unemployed attending classes/school because why should they pay for someone’s education. They claim they want to help but I suppose helping someone improve their prospects for employment is too much help.

The typical Repub position. Right back where we started. Just like health care. The Repubs want everyone to have health insurance but are against any and every way that would ensure such happening. The same old, tired, worn out ideas.

Our ideas haven't been tried. For 70 years, we've been trying YOUR ideas! The same old worn out ideas that have now been proven to not work, and not fix any problem regarding economic status of the poor. And here you are, in the wake of all this failure, telling us that we need to just spend more money we don't have! Let's just keep taxing the wealth earners, and borrowing what we can't tax from Communists, and eventually we'll fix this problem that you continue to raise the bar on! I say if you haven't fixed the problem by now, with all the money we've poured into it, you're not going to ever fix the problem... because your plan stinks on ice. It doesn't work!

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Yes, my understanding is that the vast majority of people at job fairs are unemployed, or they would have been at work.

Where did I say the vast majority?
OH-WAIT, I GET IT.
You just realized that you're comment was stupid and had to change the subject, so you wouldn't appear totally stupid.

It didn't work.
You're stupid.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Spin? You mean when one takes a closer look at your posts and sees the inconsistencies and convoluted reasoning?

No; it's where you attempt to move the view away from your posts that are inconsistent and that show you're attempting to use convoluted reasoning.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

To which I was referring. The people who were looking, those who currently have jobs, have lousy jobs.

Which post did you make such an inference?

 

[apple0154]

Ahh... so we finally get to the bottom of things! With my capitalist free market system, crooks can, and are, sent to jail for theft... in your government-run system, the Gub just changes the laws to make it legal to steal our money! And your system is better, why again?

It seems you have exchanged a system where the "1%" work within the law to attain wealth by capitalist trade of goods and services, for a system where the "1%" make the laws and can do anything they damn well please. Again... I vote for MY system!

My system is better because the people are reimbursed for their losses. Ask anyone who lost their retirement money through Enron the following question, “If you had a choice between Enron management reimbursing you for your losses or sending them to jail and you receive no money which would you prefer?” I’m willing to bet the proverbial farm 99.99999 would opt for reimbursement. Assuming they’re Dixie Repubs, of course.

That poor people are less motivated to become wealthy people, than those who become wealthy. I've not implied it, I have stated it outright, about a dozen times or more in this thread. You are apparently not listening very well.

Well your solution sure hasn't worked. Making their life more comfortable isn't serving to motivate them. I don't know how else to put it, it's not a matter of them "minding" being poor, it's that they are often content to remain poor, and let you take care of their needs. They lack the motivation to do better, and you are enabling them.

My solution would we 'work-for-welfare' programs, where no one gets a free handout, and anyone who needs a hand up can get it. This really isn't about the cost or saving money, it's about the principle and motivation. Unless we find a way to motivate the poor, they will remain, as they have the past 70 years, in poverty. Showering them with stuff isn't going to ever fix this problem, Apple.

OK. Let’s go with that general idea which is finding jobs for welfare folks. Can we get a few specifics like what jobs and where? If the government can find people jobs I’m all for that. The only thing that surprises me is it sounds an awful lot like socialism but if you’re suggesting it then it must go by another name.

No talking point, just common practical sense. You asked, and I answered. Now you can choose to ridicule my answer if you so desire, but you've not refuted my answer, nor have you refuted any point I have made thus far. You just keep swinging for the fences to no avail, and striking out miserably...but don't let that deter you!

“Find something you are interested in, which is legal, that you can make money doing, that consumers will pay for.” Ah, yes. Just common sense. No details. No specifics. In that case it’s easy to find a job. Just find someone who wants to pay you for doing something.

By golly, Dix, between you and me we’ll beat this unemployment problem!

You didn't receive the money for nothing. You benefited from your knowledge and wisdom (something that should give every moron on the planet hope!) and gained wealth because you had the foresight to invest in a good piece of real estate. If there is ever an example of how utterly easy it is to become successful in a capitalist free market society, you are it! You prove the point! If an abject moron such as yourself, can stumble into wealth through investment, then ANYONE can do it... even a caveman!

You’re not listening, Dix. Or you’re having comprehension problems. I didn’t invest. I bought a place to live just like millions of other people did whose homes ended up under water. I never researched the area with an eye towards making a profit. I liked the area and figured a tenant or two would help pay the mortgage. The main underlying reason for my purchase was to ensure that if I ever became unemployed the rents would cover the mortgage. That’s all. I never considered making money in Real Estate. I never planned on selling my building. It was my home. It was classic 1920s style with French doors between the living and dining areas with acid etched glass

and lots of woodwork. As for motivation the décor was anything but motivating. If anything it inspired a laid back, relaxed feeling. Put on some quiet music, pour a drink and proceed to seduce court the visiting gal.

Helped a lot? Really? But we have people dying and starving and suffering Apple... did they die and starve with more suffering before? I'm not getting it... first you claim the conditions are deplorable and inexcusable, and people are suffering... then you tell me it's better than it was before. We're currently on the hook for over $140 trillion in unfunded liability. It seems to me there should be some margin of difference in the conditions of suffering, hunger and dying, that things should be looking up... but you say we need to spend more. I just disagree, if our spending the kind of money we've spent, hasn't resulted in anything more than it has, we need to objectively evaluate the plan, because something isn't working. Seems you haven't really helped the conditions in 70 years of trying, and it's a fool's dream to believe that more of the same is going to make a difference.

As I said before we’ve come a long way but we’re capable of going a lot further. Poverty is the comparison between people, not just a specific set of circumstances, which I explained in a prior post. Poverty puts people at a disadvantage. 25 years ago one wasn’t considered poor if they didn’t have a computer. Today, the lack of a computer directly affects the ability of people to access knowledge that is readily available to those who do have a computer and this affects children and their learning. Do you consider giving a child the necessary tools to learn to be a case of wasting money and/or spoiling them?

So what I am hearing you say is, people's basic essential needs evolve over time, and it now takes more to relieve the suffering? Well let's see... by 2082, poor people are going to need G5 private jets to tool around in like rich people, otherwise, they will be unmercifully suffering and dying in the streets! How could we live in such a cruel world?

Well, it looks like you grasp the basic concept except, like the typical Conservative/Repub, you take things to the extreme. You know, like talking about marrying ones mail box when gay marriage is being discussed.

Our ideas haven't been tried. For 70 years, we've been trying YOUR ideas! The same old worn out ideas that have now been proven to not work, and not fix any problem regarding economic status of the poor. And here you are, in the wake of all this failure, telling us that we need to just spend more money we don't have! Let's just keep taxing the wealth earners, and borrowing what we can't tax from Communists, and eventually we'll fix this problem that you continue to raise the bar on! I say if you haven't fixed the problem by now, with all the money we've poured into it, you're not going to ever fix the problem... because your plan stinks on ice. It doesn't work!

Dix, your ideas were tried for thousands of years since man first formed tribes. It’s only in the last 70 or so years there has been SS. It’s only the last 45 or so years the elderly could afford to get medical care. There are still 45,000 people dying every year from a lack of medical insurance and you say we’ve come far enough. Do you have any idea how crazy you sound?

 

[apple0154]

Which post did you make such an inference?

Msg #599. "Free medical? But they have a job. Isn't medical included? Perhaps we should question just what type of "job" they supposedly had but that would take some thinking on your part."

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

My system is better because the people are reimbursed for their losses. Ask anyone who lost their retirement money through Enron the following question, “If you had a choice between Enron management reimbursing you for your losses or sending them to jail and you receive no money which would you prefer?” I’m willing to bet the proverbial farm 99.99999 would opt for reimbursement. Assuming they’re Dixie Repubs, of course.

Reimbursed? Who is going to reimburse the 70 million Baby Boomers all the billions of dollars they paid into the SS system the past 50 years? The Government? The Government doesn't have a means of income other than taxation. So you are essentially saying, we are going to reimburse ourselves! Well, that's just lovely, Apple! I am pretty sure the Enron folks would 100% have agreed to THAT plan, aren't you? "Here, we're not going to put these crooks in jail, instead, you employees will have to fork over half your paycheck the next 50 years, to pay back the money they stole! So everything is cool now! Have a nice day!"

OK. Let’s go with that general idea which is finding jobs for welfare folks. Can we get a few specifics like what jobs and where? If the government can find people jobs I’m all for that. The only thing that surprises me is it sounds an awful lot like socialism but if you’re suggesting it then it must go by another name.

For instance, if you have people who are living in public housing, there are any number of 'jobs' to be done in the project. Perhaps the HHS could establish a day care system for children who's poor parents have found a job and need some help watching the rug rats? The workers could be people living in the housing project, earning credits toward their housing expense. Perhaps we would have 'commodity centers' like we once did, where poor people could come get basic food supplies at a reduced price or even free? Those who worked there, could earn credits to spend at the food store. The same for clothing and other things, we could have all sorts of 'work for welfare' type programs, and it would be an improvement over what we do now. It wouldn't cost as much money, and at the same time, it would instill a motivational element... You want stuff? you have to earn stuff! That's LIFE!

“Find something you are interested in, which is legal, that you can make money doing, that consumers will pay for.” Ah, yes. Just common sense. No details. No specifics. In that case it’s easy to find a job. Just find someone who wants to pay you for doing something.

By golly, Dix, between you and me we’ll beat this unemployment problem!

Are we talking about the unemployment problem or how poor people escape lives of poverty? Because these are two entirely different topics. An old poster we used to have around in the old days, was 'Stories4u', he was very well-spoken and interesting to read, and fairly conservative politically. He would intrigue you with his anecdotes and wit, but he made brilliant points sometimes, in the most unique ways. One of my Stories Classics is when he posted a thread about how he could tell you a job you could do right now, with no special skill or training, no college degree, no hard physical labor, and make $100k a year working an average 40hr week... Completely legal, no seminars or selling products... He intentionally did not reveal his plan, and for days, he had people trying to guess... pinheads saying he was full of shit... he was bluffing, he didn't know of any such job... and this went on for most of the week. The thread was hot, with just about everyone joining in to venture some kind of guess or express an opinion on what they thought it could be, but mostly we were all stumped. What in the hell could he possibly know that we hadn't thought about?

Now what I should do here, is keep you guessing for a day or two, racking your brain, trying to figure out what one could do that was legal, and make $100k a year with no education, talent or skill, and not have to work hard? Because this is what you are asking me for here, right? You want to know a specific job as an example, correct? After days of speculation and fervent doubt from the pinheads, Stories finally revealed that he was referring to what he did for a living... Story Telling. He told stories at libraries or made appearances at festivals and fairs as a Native American, telling stories of his tribe and their customs. He said he made as much as $300 an appearance, depending on the group. He often did appearances for free, if it was like the Boy Scouts or something he wanted to do, but over the course of the year, he made around $100k, and never broke a sweat. He said he could make more, but he only worked part time at it now, about half the appearances as he had done. He was his own boss, he could do as many appearances as he wanted or as few, it was up to him. Of course, he didn't just wake up one morning to that, he had to put some effort and hard work into making it happen, but he was motivated. He picked something he loved, that people would pay him for, that was legal. And he devoted himself to it with everything he had, and became successful.

You’re not listening, Dix. Or you’re having comprehension problems. I didn’t invest. I bought a place to live just like millions of other people did whose homes ended up under water. I never researched the area with an eye towards making a profit. I liked the area and figured a tenant or two would help pay the mortgage. The main underlying reason for my purchase was to ensure that if I ever became unemployed the rents would cover the mortgage. That’s all. I never considered making money in Real Estate. I never planned on selling my building. It was my home. It was classic 1920s style with French doors between the living and dining areas with acid etched glass

and lots of woodwork. As for motivation the décor was anything but motivating. If anything it inspired a laid back, relaxed feeling. Put on some quiet music, pour a drink and proceed to seduce court the visiting gal.

I've highlighted some important aspects to your story, and I want you to think about these carefully. You were thinking ahead, you made the conscious choice to purchase what you did. There were probably many other options you considered, but even more importantly, thousands of options you didn't. When you made your choice, you did so on the basis of your recognition of value, in the aspects of the design, and the feeling that others would appreciate this as well. This isn't some ability that everyone has, Apple. These aren't choices everyone would have made. You can modestly claim you did nothing special, but the bottom line is, not everyone is capable of this. Now maybe you were really fortunate the way real estate skyrocketed, but there again, you made the choice to capitalize on that, and not everyone would have. Some people might have been more greedy? Some people might have never realized what the value was? So in every aspect of this, you did do things that made this happen, or maybe your old lady steered your stupid ass there? In any event, even there... you picked the old lady!

As I said before we’ve come a long way but we’re capable of going a lot further. Poverty is the comparison between people, not just a specific set of circumstances, which I explained in a prior post. Poverty puts people at a disadvantage. 25 years ago one wasn’t considered poor if they didn’t have a computer. Today, the lack of a computer directly affects the ability of people to access knowledge that is readily available to those who do have a computer and this affects children and their learning. Do you consider giving a child the necessary tools to learn to be a case of wasting money and/or spoiling them?

Oh no no... according to you, we have NOT come a long way! We still have needy starving & dying poor people who live in the most deplorable conditions and it's morally reprehensible. I can't imagine things being much worse. And low and behold, we have the HHS numbers on families living at or below poverty level, which we have compiled over the past 50 years, and we find that poverty levels are not dropping, we have just as many living in REAL poverty today, as we had 50 years ago. Same standards and criteria, same set of circumstances examined. The poverty level is the amount of money it takes for a family of 4 to live for a year in basic necessities. Food, clothing, housing, medical, school. It does not consider material possessions, entertainment or lifestyle.

Computers are available in every public library in America now. So we can shut the fuck up about providing those. We already do. There are also computers available at every state job center, as well as copiers and fax machines. These are free to use for anyone seeking a job. So no one lacks access to the technology, it's available to every American who is motivated to seek it out.

Well, it looks like you grasp the basic concept except, like the typical Conservative/Repub, you take things to the extreme. You know, like talking about marrying ones mail box when gay marriage is being discussed.

I take them to the extreme to prove the point, you can't proclaim some arbitrary off-the-top-of-your-head principle without thinking the fucker through first! It's just not wise! It's like the old film clip of the guy in the bird suit jumping off the cliff to his demise! I never said that gay marriage would lead to people wanting to marry the mailbox, I said that if you're going to establish principle that we can marry based on our sexual desires, then how could you prohibit such a marriage, if someone had a mailbox fetish? I was just asking a hypothetical, and you somehow took it out of context. But that's okay, you don't do it as bad as some here.

Dix, your ideas were tried for thousands of years since man first formed tribes. It’s only in the last 70 or so years there has been SS. It’s only the last 45 or so years the elderly could afford to get medical care. There are still 45,000 people dying every year from a lack of medical insurance and you say we’ve come far enough. Do you have any idea how crazy you sound?

My ideas have NOT been tried, and you don't even know what MY ideas are, you have your fingers stuck in your ears and refuse to hear MY ideas. You're too busy promoting socialized medicine and touting the wonders of statism. SS is going to be a failure because we put it in the hands of government and entrusted them with our retirement, and they stole the money... just like the Enron crooks... except, they don't go to jail because they make the laws, and us taxpayers will just have to suck it up and try to repay the debt.

 

[Airstrip One]

I still say government tyrants should be dragged out into the streets and hanged. Apple can still sing them his praises...

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Msg #599. "Free medical? But they have a job. Isn't medical included? Perhaps we should question just what type of "job" they supposedly had but that would take some thinking on your part."

Or you could stop trying to equate the two, because they could also just be looking for a better job (which doesn't mean the one they have is crappy); but then, that would mean you would have to first admit that you don't have a clue.

 

[apple0154]

Reimbursed? Who is going to reimburse the 70 million Baby Boomers all the billions of dollars they paid into the SS system the past 50 years? The Government? The Government doesn't have a means of income other than taxation. So you are essentially saying, we are going to reimburse ourselves! Well, that's just lovely, Apple! I am pretty sure the Enron folks would 100% have agreed to THAT plan, aren't you? "Here, we're not going to put these crooks in jail, instead, you employees will have to fork over half your paycheck the next 50 years, to pay back the money they stole! So everything is cool now! Have a nice day!"

“A baby boomer is a person who was born during the demographic Post-World War II baby boom between the years 1946 and 1964, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.” (Dic.com) An 18 year period. That means the BBers are between 66 and 48. Considering the average person would contribute for 40 years the BBers wouldn’t be able to reimburse themselves considering their average time to retirement is 9 years. The rest of society would have to contribute.

For instance, if you have people who are living in public housing, there are any number of 'jobs' to be done in the project. Perhaps the HHS could establish a day care system for children who's poor parents have found a job and need some help watching the rug rats? The workers could be people living in the housing project, earning credits toward their housing expense. Perhaps we would have 'commodity centers' like we once did, where poor people could come get basic food supplies at a reduced price or even free? Those who worked there, could earn credits to spend at the food store. The same for clothing and other things, we could have all sorts of 'work for welfare' type programs, and it would be an improvement over what we do now. It wouldn't cost as much money, and at the same time, it would instill a motivational element... You want stuff? you have to earn stuff! That's LIFE!

Hey, I’m all for the government supplying jobs. I’m just surprised YOU are for that, as well. You’re not a closet Socialist, are you? I have no problem with a work for welfare program IF it is not taken advantage of which is quite easily done. I’m not for the government paying a welfare recipient the equivalent of $5/hr for a job that normally pays $25/hr. Let’s say a person who works for a city cleaning public parks makes $20/hr. Don’t expect a welfare recipient to do it for $300/wk. but as far as organizing day cares and doing jobs around a government project housing I’m for that.

Are we talking about the unemployment problem or how poor people escape lives of poverty? Because these are two entirely different topics. An old poster we used to have around in the old days, was 'Stories4u', he was very well-spoken and interesting to read, and fairly conservative politically. He would intrigue you with his anecdotes and wit, but he made brilliant points sometimes, in the most unique ways. One of my Stories Classics is when he posted a thread about how he could tell you a job you could do right now, with no special skill or training, no college degree, no hard physical labor, and make $100k a year working an average 40hr week... Completely legal, no seminars or selling products... He intentionally did not reveal his plan, and for days, he had people trying to guess... pinheads saying he was full of shit... he was bluffing, he didn't know of any such job... and this went on for most of the week. The thread was hot, with just about everyone joining in to venture some kind of guess or express an opinion on what they thought it could be, but mostly we were all stumped. What in the hell could he possibly know that we hadn't thought about?

Now what I should do here, is keep you guessing for a day or two, racking your brain, trying to figure out what one could do that was legal, and make $100k a year with no education, talent or skill, and not have to work hard? Because this is what you are asking me for here, right? You want to know a specific job as an example, correct? After days of speculation and fervent doubt from the pinheads, Stories finally revealed that he was referring to what he did for a living... Story Telling. He told stories at libraries or made appearances at festivals and fairs as a Native American, telling stories of his tribe and their customs. He said he made as much as $300 an appearance, depending on the group. He often did appearances for free, if it was like the Boy Scouts or something he wanted to do, but over the course of the year, he made around $100k, and never broke a sweat. He said he could make more, but he only worked part time at it now, about half the appearances as he had done. He was his own boss, he could do as many appearances as he wanted or as few, it was up to him. Of course, he didn't just wake up one morning to that, he had to put some effort and hard work into making it happen, but he was motivated. He picked something he loved, that people would pay him for, that was legal. And he devoted himself to it with everything he had, and became successful.

Interesting story and while it’s a job anyone can do there are a limited number of those jobs. Just like the “Pet Rock ” job. There are many, many intelligent, motivated, educated people thinking of nothing else than how to exploit some unique idea so it’s a bit unrealistic to expect the average welfare recipient to be the one who discovers one. Furthermore, it takes connections and the knowledge of how to get a product/service to the public.

I recall landing a job out of 120 applicants. (Yes, I asked the interviewer how many people applied.) Do you honestly believe I had the most unique resume? Or do you think first impressions and luck and circumstance played a larger role? Maybe I happened to say the right thing at the right time. Maybe that particular interviewer was having a pleasant day when he met with me?

I had a total of three interviews. The last one was with four guys and we were in a Board Room. Maybe one of the guys told the others to make a decision because, quite frankly, the position did not warrant such a lengthy procedure. I was not applying for a seat on the Board of Directors.

I've highlighted some important aspects to your story, and I want you to think about these carefully. You were thinking ahead, you made the conscious choice to purchase what you did. There were probably many other options you considered, but even more importantly, thousands of options you didn't. When you made your choice, you did so on the basis of your recognition of value, in the aspects of the design, and the feeling that others would appreciate this as well. This isn't some ability that everyone has, Apple. These aren't choices everyone would have made. You can modestly claim you did nothing special, but the bottom line is, not everyone is capable of this. Now maybe you were really fortunate the way real estate skyrocketed, but there again, you made the choice to capitalize on that, and not everyone would have. Some people might have been more greedy? Some people might have never realized what the value was? So in every aspect of this, you did do things that made this happen, or maybe your old lady steered your stupid ass there? In any event, even there... you picked the old lady!

I may have done so subconsciously but that just goes to prove my point. A lot of success depends on luck. I certainly did not consciously consider those things. I didn’t give a damn who liked or didn’t like the place. In fact there were buildings similarly priced that had been renovated. The building I chose had the original varnished pine floor in the kitchen along with “ herringbone’ patterned hard wood in the living and dining rooms. I found out most people prefer a renovated place; modern kitchen, french doors removed and the space opened up, etc. I never purchased it with the idea I would sell it. And consider the sellers. They had it for 10 years and sold it for less than what they originally paid. If they had waited a few years longer they would have seen the dramatic price increase.

Luck and circumstance play a major roll. Just look at the gal I chose. Our differences included native language, different religion, differing levels of education ( 4 years of university compared to a tradesman) and a nine year age difference. (She’s younger.) We had NOTHING in common!

Of course, she was to be my second wife so I have to admit I knew what to look for. And she knew what to look for, as well, being a professional. She’d ask questions like, “What would you consider to be the most important quality your partner must possess?” “What do you expect from a relationship?” Serious, direct, non-emotional questions. As to the question, “What do you expect from a relationship?”, my answer was “Sex! I don’t need someone to wash dishes. I have a dishwasher. I don’t need someone to cook dinner. I have a microwave. I don’t need someone to do my laundry. I have a new washer and dryer.” In hindsight I probably impressed her as she knew I wasn’t looking for a maid and was capable of looking after myself although I might have chosen a somewhat different way to express that.

Oh no no... according to you, we have NOT come a long way! We still have needy starving & dying poor people who live in the most deplorable conditions and it's morally reprehensible. I can't imagine things being much worse. And low and behold, we have the HHS numbers on families living at or below poverty level, which we have compiled over the past 50 years, and we find that poverty levels are not dropping, we have just as many living in REAL poverty today, as we had 50 years ago. Same standards and criteria, same set of circumstances examined. The poverty level is the amount of money it takes for a family of 4 to live for a year in basic necessities. Food, clothing, housing, medical, school. It does not consider material possessions, entertainment or lifestyle.

Don’t be absurd. A family of four living 50 years ago did not receive the same amount of money a family of four receives today. Food is not the same price. The variety has expanded. Certain foods are packaged with an inert gas which delays decay. Ever thought how cut garden greens can stay fresh for a week or longer? Try it at home.

Computers are available in every public library in America now. So we can shut the fuck up about providing those. We already do. There are also computers available at every state job center, as well as copiers and fax machines. These are free to use for anyone seeking a job. So no one lacks access to the technology, it's available to every American who is motivated to seek it out.

Sure and one can stand on the sidewalk outside an electronics store and watch TV for free.

I take them to the extreme to prove the point, you can't proclaim some arbitrary off-the-top-of-your-head principle without thinking the fucker through first! It's just not wise! It's like the old film clip of the guy in the bird suit jumping off the cliff to his demise! I never said that gay marriage would lead to people wanting to marry the mailbox, I said that if you're going to establish principle that we can marry based on our sexual desires, then how could you prohibit such a marriage, if someone had a mailbox fetish? I was just asking a hypothetical, and you somehow took it out of context. But that's okay, you don't do it as bad as some here.

The point is gay marriage has absolutely no effect on anyone other than the people getting married. Any other argument is pure nonsense.

My ideas have NOT been tried, and you don't even know what MY ideas are, you have your fingers stuck in your ears and refuse to hear MY ideas. You're too busy promoting socialized medicine and touting the wonders of statism. SS is going to be a failure because we put it in the hands of government and entrusted them with our retirement, and they stole the money... just like the Enron crooks... except, they don't go to jail because they make the laws, and us taxpayers will just have to suck it up and try to repay the debt.

I’m sure those who “suck it up and try to repay the debt” will make out OK. I wouldn’t worry about them. You can bet they won’t miss a meal.

 

[apple0154]

I still say government tyrants should be dragged out into the streets and hanged. Apple can still sing them his praises...

One day you'll meet a sexy government employee and your whole attitude will change. :lol:

 

[apple0154]

Or you could stop trying to equate the two, because they could also just be looking for a better job (which doesn't mean the one they have is crappy); but then, that would mean you would have to first admit that you don't have a clue.

Indeed, some may be well employed and looking for something better but it's doubtful they make up any significant numbers.