How much extra in taxes would you pay to eliminate poverty?

[BoberFett]

Enough. I pay both state (Oregon) and federal, yet somehow I've survived.

Quite well, in fact.

In other words, you don't pay much.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Hey, would you please stop thinking of the consequences and just concentrate on the potential? Don't you know it can work if you have the right people orchestrating it all? It's not like mankind hasn't learned from earlier mistakes. Why can't it be accomplished this time without all the mass killings? Of course, what do you do with those that won't acquiesce?

Hmm, well, let's just leave the details to our leaders. We don't need to know how the sausage is made we just need to enjoy the sausage.

We won't get sausage, bro; meat is for the master.

 

[fskimospy]

No, you believe the functions of government are what you say they are. Anytime someone disagrees with you, you bring out your smug face and make statements like "I'm shocked that people disagree with me when I tell them my opinion is right."

No, I believe that the functions of government SHOULD include certain things, which is very different than declaring what the functions of government are.

Nice try with the straw man though!

 

[fskimospy]

Everything is open ended when there is an agenda. The Constitution is a fluid document that can be changed. When it's changed to include the mandate to alleviate poverty with tax money let me know.

So are you saying that everything in the Constitution that is not mandated is not supposed to be part of the functions of government? That doesn't make much sense, considering the Constitution was deliberately written with the purpose of allowing Congress to make these kind of decisions.

The people have spoken....hahhahhaaaaa! Spoken to what? Welfare? Please.... Welfare has a role and purpose but it's clearly out of hand and abused.

Abused how? Fraud rates for those programs are quite low.

 

[FerrelGeek]

No, you believe the functions of government are what you say they are. Anytime someone disagrees with you, you bring out your smug face and make statements like "I'm shocked that people disagree with me when I tell them my opinion is right."

Remember, he thinks the constitution, being conceived by a bunch of dead white guys, is irrelevant today. The mantra that the constitution is a living document is true, but it's living in that it can be amended as the super-majority of our federal/state governments deem necessary. However, the standard of libs is that it's a living document in that it can be interpreted in whatever loose way is necessary to get their own way. Remember Obama's own words (paraphrased) that he viewed the constitution as being too restrictive on government. Newsflash - that's what those dead white guys WANTED it to be! They knew better than most today.

 

[fskimospy]

Remember, he thinks the constitution, being conceived by a bunch of dead white guys, is irrelevant today.

False. I think that attempting to interpret how to apply the Constitution to events of today by attempting to divine what people who have been dead for two centuries would think about them is both ridiculous and dumb.

The idea that I'm supposed to determine how James Madison would have ruled about whether or not a thermal imagine spy satellite was conducting an 'unreasonable' search is so dumb it beggars belief, yet that is exactly what conservatives claim we should do.

The mantra that the constitution is a living document is true, but it's living in that it can be amended as the super-majority of our federal/state governments deem necessary. However, the standard of libs is that it's a living document in that it can be interpreted in whatever loose way is necessary to get their own way.

Straw man.

Remember Obama's own words (paraphrased) that he viewed the constitution as being too restrictive on government. Newsflash - that's what those dead white guys WANTED it to be! They knew better than most today.

Please supply this quote.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

Instead of asking much money we are willing to sacrifice towards eliminating poverty, the question you really need to ask is: "How are we going to eliminate poverty?"

I am an investor. I have owned several businesses in the past, own one currently, and have invested in several small start-ups, most of which have been pretty wise investments (both for me and the owners, as well as the community). I work for a large employer simply because I enjoy the work immensely as well the fact that it provides a certain level of security and benefits that my family requires, and they benefit from my work as well (so I am told).

But there have been a few investments that I have made that didn't quite work so well. Those I believe were made due to emotional decisions rather than rational, well-thought out decisions.

The point I am trying to make is simply this: Don't ask me how much money I am going to throw at a problem. Tell me what the proposed solution is in the first place. Then I will make that decision if it makes logical sense.

Otherwise this whole thread is little more than an ideological circle-jerk.

-----------

Our current anti-poverty programs are an utter failure. We have thrown numerous trillions at the problem since the 60's (approximately enough to pay off the national debt. This is very telling in and of itself).
Poverty numbers amongst minorities have risen since the 60's. Percentages of broken minority families have skyrocketed. Despite rising numbers of welfare programs available to the poor, their numbers only swell. The amount of lifetime welfare recipients per capita have either stayed the same, or have grown depending on the geographic location, etc.

I think most reasonable people would agree that our anti-poverty programs have not done their job. If anything, they have made things worse for the poor.

I am all for eliminating poverty. I am all for investing in something that works. Just show us this plan. Show examples of how it would work. Then I might be tempted.

Any takers?

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

False. I think that attempting to interpret how to apply the Constitution to events of today by attempting to divine what people who have been dead for two centuries would think about them is both ridiculous and dumb.

The idea that I'm supposed to determine how James Madison would have ruled about whether or not a thermal imagine spy satellite was conducting an 'unreasonable' search is so dumb it beggars belief, yet that is exactly what conservatives claim we should do.

Translation: well-worn moral principles have no meaning in todays society. It's just too hard...

Believe it or not, its not that difficult to divine the intentions of the Founding Fathers in many cases. For instance, the Second Amendment is quite simple, and quite clear in its meaning. The problem is, it flies in the face of liberal ideology. The two ideas conflict with each other. As a result, the liberal will do everything they can to antiquate the Constitution, to dilute its effectiveness.

There is little ambiguity in the Constitution. Liberals well understand the meaning. They just don't accept it. Instead, its just easier to use the "200 hundred-year-old dead guys" argument to cater to morally ambivalent people. Which is simply pathetic.

 

[K1052]

So to generally recap here why it should be 0% more.

1) Poor people are lazy.
2) The government will waste the money anyway.
3) I got mine so go fuck yourself.
4) People who abuse the system represent a majority of those receiving aid.
5) Giving people stuff is communist and we all saw how the USSR ended up.

All sound, data driven, rationalizations that don't make you look like assholes.

I'm mostly agnostic on the actual topic since spending money is only part of the equation as there are a ton of legal, social, and economic contributors to poverty that would need to be dealt with at the same time. Most likely this would cost some additional money but that should driven by the actual need instead of some arbitrary percentage.

 

[fskimospy]

Our current anti-poverty programs are an utter failure. We have thrown numerous trillions at the problem since the 60's (approximately enough to pay off the national debt. This is very telling in and of itself).

Poverty numbers amongst minorities have risen since the 60's. Percentages of broken minority families have skyrocketed. Despite rising numbers of welfare programs available to the poor, their numbers only swell. The amount of lifetime welfare recipients per capita have either stayed the same, or have grown depending on the geographic location, etc.

Actually, poverty has decreased markedly since anti-poverty programs went into effect. The poverty rate for Americans was frequently above 20% in the past, and was several points higher in 1964 than it is now.

More importantly, the poverty rate you're probably referring to is calculated before the effects of many of these programs, which makes absolutely no sense. You're basically saying "we spent all this money and poverty stayed the same, so long as you don't count any of the money we spent."

So good news, people actually living in poverty have gone way down! Aren't you happy?

I think most reasonable people would agree that our anti-poverty programs have not done their job. If anything, they have made things worse for the poor.

I doubt that. If you're talking about federal programs such as Medicaid, TANF, SNAP, etc, their job was never to eliminate or reduce poverty. Their goal was to mitigate the negative aspects of poverty. They have been quite successful at this.

Medicaid for example might make it easier for someone to escape poverty if they are able to find access to Medical treatment, but that would be an incidental effect, not the goal of Medicaid.

I am all for eliminating poverty. I am all for investing in something that works. Just show us this plan. Show examples of how it would work. Then I might be tempted.

Any takers?

How about a basic income?

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

So to generally recap here why it should be 0% more.

1) Poor people are lazy.
2) The government will waste the money anyway.
3) I got mine so go fuck yourself.
4) People who abuse the system represent a majority of those receiving aid.
5) Giving people stuff is communist and we all saw how the USSR ended up.

1) ALL people are lazy.
2) This is an historical fact
3) Nope. I got mine; I should determine how to best spend it, not be forced to give it to others against my will. Most rich people are more than willing to give generously to charities. They just don't believe that govt programs are the way to go.
4) Yes, both poor and rich. Expediency is an overwhelming factor in our decision-making process. Easy money is indeed a major temptation. For example, if you had a choice between working for $20k a year and having it given to you, which would you choose? If the govt offered to give you money to update your roof and windows, would you refuse it?
Poor people are not the only ones that abuse the system. Rich people do also. And govt only makes it too simple to do so.
5) Wrong. Being coerced or forced to give to the poor is wrong. I have no problem giving to charities of my own free will, and advocate doing so.

All sound, data driven, rationalizations that don't make you look like assholes.

No, your misrepresentations make you look like an asshole.

I'm mostly agnostic on the actual topic since spending money is only part of the equation as there are a ton of legal, social, and economic contributors to poverty that would need to be dealt with at the same time. Most likely this would cost some additional money but that should driven by the actual need instead of some arbitrary percentage.

Actually, a workable plan would be even better. A plan that is proven to work, rather than enticing the poor to stay poor. Just a thought.

 

[fskimospy]

Translation: well-worn moral principles have no meaning in todays society. It's just too hard...

Straw man.

Believe it or not, its not that difficult to divine the intentions of the Founding Fathers in many cases. For instance, the Second Amendment is quite simple, and quite clear in its meaning. The problem is, it flies in the face of liberal ideology. The two ideas conflict with each other. As a result, the liberal will do everything they can to antiquate the Constitution, to dilute its effectiveness.

Is it now? This is interesting, considering the founding fathers were a group of men with a great diversity of opinion on what they were making meant. I'm interested to hear what you think James Madison would have thought about my spy satellite thermal imaging idea though.

There is little ambiguity in the Constitution. Liberals well understand the meaning. They just don't accept it. Instead, its just easier to use the "200 hundred-year-old dead guys" argument to cater to morally ambivalent people. Which is simply pathetic.

That's a quote for the ages. Like, laugh out loud wrong.

There's little ambiguity in the constitution? Let's just look at a few amendments in the bill of rights to see how absurd that idea is:

What is an 'unreasonable' search?
What is 'due process'?
What is 'just compensation'?
What is 'excessive bail'?
What is 'cruel and unusual punishment'?

The Constitution is not only ambiguous, it was made that way on purpose. If you ever took just a few minutes to actually read the thing you would see that plainly.

 

[K1052]

1) ALL people are lazy.
2) This is an historical fact
3) Nope. I got mine; I should determine how to best spend it, not be forced to give it to others against my will. Most rich people are more than willing to give generously to charities. They just don't believe that govt programs are the way to go.
4) Yes, both poor and rich. Expediency is an overwhelming factor in our decision-making process. Easy money is indeed a major temptation. For example, if you had a choice between working for $20k a year and having it given to you, which would you choose? If the govt offered to give you money to update your roof and windows, would you refuse it?
Poor people are not the only ones that abuse the system. Rich people do also. And govt only makes it too simple to do so.
5) Wrong. Being coerced or forced to give to the poor is wrong. I have no problem giving to charities of my own free will, and advocate doing so.



No, your misrepresentations make you look like an asshole.



Actually, a workable plan would be even better. A plan that is proven to work, rather than enticing the poor to stay poor. Just a thought.

You use qualifiers that are not stated in the vast majority of the responses, which are mostly simplistic knee-jerk responses. I think you're conflating your opinion with that of other people in your response to me.

Also, WWYBYWB?

 

[glenn1]

I will renew my request. Try and argue for your point that government policy can't alleviate poverty and use evidence to do so.

Evidence is that poverty still exists in areas led by Democratic progressives, often moreso than in other areas of the country. How about you provide evidence that it CAN alleviate poverty since you've so clearly failed at it.

 

[fskimospy]

Evidence is that poverty still exists in areas led by Democratic progressives, often moreso than in other areas of the country. How about you provide evidence that it CAN alleviate poverty since you've so clearly failed at it.

Here you go:
https://courseworks.columbia.edu/ac...Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf

Our estimates using the anchored SPM show that historical trends in poverty have been more favorable -- and that government programs have played a larger role -- than OPM estimates suggest. The OPM shows the overall poverty rates to be nearly the same in 1967 and 2011 – at 14% and 15% respectively. But our counterfactual estimates using the anchored SPM show that without taxes and other government programs, poverty would have been roughly flat at 27-29%, while with government benefits poverty has fallen from 26% to 16% -- a 40% reduction. Government programs today are cutting poverty nearly in half (from 29% to 16%) while in 1967 they only cut poverty by about a one percentage point.

Results are particularly striking for child poverty and deep child poverty. In 2012, government programs reduced both child poverty and deep child poverty by 11 percentage points. In 1967, by contrast government programs (through the tax system) actually increased child poverty rates, and reduced deep child poverty rates by only 4 percentage points. Estimates with the OPM would miss much of this poverty reduction, particularly in the modern period as after-tax and inkind benefits have grown in importance.

Now that you have that information I'm sure you'll reassess your opinion.

Oh who am I kidding.

 

[Angry Irishman]

So are you saying that everything in the Constitution that is not mandated is not supposed to be part of the functions of government? That doesn't make much sense, considering the Constitution was deliberately written with the purpose of allowing Congress to make these kind of decisions.



Abused how? Fraud rates for those programs are quite low.

Not going to waste my time.... Look at the poll, the people have spoken. If you want to keep making the govt bigger and bigger at the tax payers expense then have at it. Most people with common sense live in the real world.

 

[Sir Thumpsalot]

I still love how people are refusing to answer a simple question. How would you eliminate poverty?

So far, the only answer I've received is to give someone an income without their having to earn it. Classy. And endemic of liberal thinking that has harmed todays society.

Anyone else?

 

[glenn1]

Here you go:
https://courseworks.columbia.edu/ac...Papers for website/Anchored SPM.December7.pdf



Now that you have that information I'm sure you'll reassess your opinion.

Oh who am I kidding.

Great, enjoy your poverty free city and stop asking the rest of us to pay for your citizens' well being. Hopefully you don't get caught up in the proles riot your side keeps predicting.

 

[glenn1]

I still love how people are refusing to answer a simple question. How would you eliminate poverty?

So far, the only answer I've received is to give someone an income without their having to earn it. Classy. And endemic of liberal thinking that has harmed todays society.

Anyone else?

Give the poor guns and let them alleviate poverty on their own - let the people who support government intervention the most have their own stuff directly redistributed.

 

[fskimospy]

Great, enjoy your poverty free city and stop asking the rest of us to pay for your citizens' well being. Hopefully you don't get caught up in the proles riot your side keeps predicting.

Cities are net exporters of tax funds, so those cities are actually paying for your stuff, not the other way around.

Maybe you should thank them sometime.

 

[Angry Irishman]

I still love how people are refusing to answer a simple question. How would you eliminate poverty?

So far, the only answer I've received is to give someone an income without their having to earn it. Classy. And endemic of liberal thinking that has harmed todays society.

Anyone else?

This, this exactly.

 

[Zaap]

I have been a shut-in for a couple of years, I've just recently started getting back to work.
I'm still technically disabled
I had a little fight with cancer that set me back
I got almost 50 years experience on the outside and of course even being shut in doesn't stop all my friends and family from dropping in
I can't stand it stuck inside, I'm really quite the outdoors kinda guy


Out at one of the farms

Hauling gravel, bro does the driving, I jump into the payloader and load

Roofing

About to jump in the forklift yesterday at the lumberyard I work at

There is a shitload of pics I've posted here already to do with all the hunting, dog training, etc too
If disabled over 50 cancer guy can do it, most peeps here should be able too eh
How about you Zaap? any pics?

Nice pics, Earl. I've wanted a horse since I was a kid- it used to piss me off that cars were invented so I couldn't just have one as basic transportation. Maybe someday! Looks like some pretty pristine country where you live.

You have my respect and best wishes dealing with cancer, I wouldn't wish that burden on anyone.

Looks like you keep busy! My life is infinitely more boring by comparison, but I like it that way. For example, much of yesterday was all about my son's preschool Christmas play. Cuteness overload, basically.

 

[BoberFett]

False. I think that attempting to interpret how to apply the Constitution to events of today by attempting to divine what people who have been dead for two centuries would think about them is both ridiculous and dumb.

The idea that I'm supposed to determine how James Madison would have ruled about whether or not a thermal imagine spy satellite was conducting an 'unreasonable' search is so dumb it beggars belief, yet that is exactly what conservatives claim we should do.



Straw man.



Please supply this quote.

Your problem is that you're a rules lawyer. The spirit of the law can indeed tell us what people two centuries ago thought about thermal imaging.

 

[bshole]

I still love how people are refusing to answer a simple question. How would you eliminate poverty?

Not a legit question. Poverty is too subjective a term. America HAS eliminated starvation and is on the way to universal health care.

A great step towards more equitable income distribution would be to limit CEO salaries by law to 30 times the average salary of their employees.... that was the distribution in the 50s/60s when unions made this country great.

 

[fskimospy]

Your problem is that you're a rules lawyer. The spirit of the law can indeed tell us what people two centuries ago thought about thermal imaging.

Wait, are you complaining that someone is acting lawyerly about... the law?

All that aside, take a crack at it! Please give me a coherent standard as to what the founding fathers would think is permissible use of spy satellite technology that can be applied to legal proceedings.