3rdnlng Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/2014/02/13/our-problem-is-dependency-not-poverty/?subscriber=1 There is no material poverty in the U.S. Here are a few facts about people whom the Census Bureau labels as poor. Dr. Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield, in their study "Understanding Poverty in the United States: Surprising Facts About America's Poor" (http://tinyurl.com/448flj8), report that 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning; nearly three-quarters have a car or truck, and 31 percent have two or more. Two-thirds have cable or satellite TV. Half have one or more computers. Forty-two percent own their homes. Poor Americans have more living space than the typical non-poor person in Sweden, France or the U.K. What we have in our nation are dependency and poverty of the spirit, with people making unwise choices and leading pathological lives aided and abetted by the welfare state. The Census Bureau pegs the poverty rate among blacks at 35 percent and among whites at 13 percent. The illegitimacy rate among blacks is 72 percent, and among whites it's 30 percent. A statistic that one doesn't hear much about is that the poverty rate among black married families has been in the single digits for more than two decades, currently at 8 percent. For married white families, it's 5 percent. Now the politically incorrect questions: Whose fault is it to have children without the benefit of marriage and risk a life of dependency? Do people have free will, or are they governed by instincts? Read more at the link above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I've always wondered why the staunchest defenders of government assistance for the poor....those that are genuinely concerned with providing assistance for people who are truly in need.....aren't militant about preventing fraud within the system. after all, the more people that are on the dole, the less money there is for those who really need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) You really can't prevent fraud in the system b/c one way or another any form of control will violate one of the endless nondiscrimination regulations and/or guidance bits out there. As for why they give the money, b/c of the kids of course. Edited February 13, 2014 by SameOldBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 I've always wondered why the staunchest defenders of government assistance for the poor....those that are genuinely concerned with providing assistance for people who are truly in need.....aren't militant about preventing fraud within the system. after all, the more people that are on the dole, the less money there is for those who really need it. The answer is easy: by letting fraud run rampant, it provides an opportunity to conservatives to complain about waste, which then opens the door to criticizing conservatives for wanting to "take food out of the mouths of children." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 You really can't prevent fraud in the system b/c one way or another any form of control will violate one of the endless nondiscrimination regulations and/or guidance bits out there. Kick out all the white people. No one would consider that discriminatory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Kick out all the white people. No one would consider that discriminatory. http://youtu.be/0QYjFzFvJk4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I've always wondered why the staunchest defenders of government assistance for the poor....those that are genuinely concerned with providing assistance for people who are truly in need.....aren't militant about preventing fraud within the system. after all, the more people that are on the dole, the less money there is for those who really need it. Realistic answer for a fair # of them is the more total bodies in the programs, the more 'power' those running the programs end up with. Answer they'd likely give you will have something to do with either 1. accidentally knocking more people that qualify for the benefits off them than they'll actually knock off that don't qualify for them or 2. causing people that qualify for benefits to not get them due to the difficulty of getting them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I've always wondered why the staunchest defenders of government assistance for the poor....those that are genuinely concerned with providing assistance for people who are truly in need.....aren't militant about preventing fraud within the system. after all, the more people that are on the dole, the less money there is for those who really need it. Hint: They are commies. End of hint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 You really can't prevent fraud in the system b/c one way or another any form of control will violate one of the endless nondiscrimination regulations and/or guidance bits out there. As for why they give the money, b/c of the kids of course. No, money is easier and buys more votes. Fixing the cause of the problem is hard and better for the other side to talk about since it costs them votes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) No, money is easier and buys more votes. Fixing the cause of the problem is hard and better for the other side to talk about since it costs them votes. I just heard the hammer hit the nail square on the head and drive it flush into the board in one swing. Edited February 14, 2014 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I should have added "giving out other people's" in front of "money." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 How about we end hand outs but provide employment opportunities with decent paying jobs. Putting people to work would solve so many problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) How about we end hand outs but provide employment opportunities with decent paying jobs. Putting people to work would solve so many problems. Hey you're right. That would solve many problems. So how about getting governments to adopt more economic growth policies for the private sector. Now companies have to be profitable otherwise they can't employ people, and people have to offer employable skills and work habits. Edited February 14, 2014 by keepthefaith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 How about we end hand outs but provide employment opportunities with decent paying jobs. Putting people to work would solve so many problems. But... I though jobs were wage slavery... Has the narative changed again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 You really can't prevent fraud in the system b/c one way or another any form of control will violate one of the endless nondiscrimination regulations and/or guidance bits out there. As for why they give the money, b/c of the kids of course. I wasn't talking about any government agency when I said 'staunchest defenders of government assistance for the poor', I was referring to ordinary citizens of the bleeding-heart leftist persuasion. I would think that if they were sincere in their defense of welfare and other forms of public assistance, that they would realize that people scamming the system are taking money from the people who need it most. for some reason, they don't seem to care about that, and instead aim their anger toward people who would prefer to see limitations placed on an out-of-control source of handouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 But... I though jobs were wage slavery... Has the narative changed again? Yes, but you need to have a job to be freed from it. So in typical progressive minds, you can't help people avoid job lock if you don't first give them a job from which to quit. You see, we're in Italy.The guy on the top has to make the guy on the bottom's bed. He's gotta make his bed all the time. It's in the regulations. If I were in Germany, I'd have to make yours. But we're not. So you gotta make mine. It's in the regulations.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 But... I though jobs were wage slavery... Has the narative changed again? Wow, who said that and what significance does that have to me? Hey you're right. That would solve many problems. So how about getting governments to adopt more economic growth policies for the private sector. Now companies have to be profitable otherwise they can't employ people, and people have to offer employable skills and work habits. What policies would provide near 100% employment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Wow, who said that and what significance does that have to me? What policies would provide near 100% employment? Let us know when you retards come up with any policies at all besides 'pay a kid $15/hr to flip a $.99 burger' and 'have the kid be in a union so he can't be fired even if he's caught spitting on the burger' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Let us know when you retards come up with any policies at all besides 'pay a kid $15/hr to flip a $.99 burger' and 'have the kid be in a union so he can't be fired even if he's caught spitting on the burger' Sadly, that's actually better than you sh...it eaters trying to "create jobs" by cutting government jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 What policies would provide near 100% employment? few, if any. however, history has shown time and again that free markets, low taxation, and minimal government interference always creates the most significant and widespread increase in wealth throughout the populace, and provides escape from poverty for the largest percentage of the population. it also provides a greater source of tax revenue with which to support a financial safety net for those that need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts