Four in five Americans face poverty, unemployment

[variant]

Are you seriously saying that social welfare programs make more people impoverished?

I think he is saying exactly that.

 

[LuminousPhoenix]

I think it's pretty obvious that something major is going to happen with the American, and world, economy within the next 10 years, probably sooner. The level of debt accumulation is completely unsustainable.
Anyone ever heard Lindsey Williams? Heard him on the radio a while back, talking about how the New World Order is intentionally goading us into accumulating massive debt, so that they can come bail us out in four years. In return for refunding all our debt, they will require individuals, states, the US Federal Government, and many other countries to give up their freedoms and sovereignty and submit to the New World Order. Sounds conspiracy theory-ish, and it is, but we know from Scripture that this is going to happen eventually, so who knows? Maybe Lindsey Williams will be right. In any case, the only thing we can do is get right with God if we aren't already, and stay right with God if we already are. No matter what happens, we are in for quite a ride ahead.

 

[Swim411]

I think it's pretty obvious that something major is going to happen with the American, and world, economy within the next 10 years, probably sooner. The level of debt accumulation is completely unsustainable.
Anyone ever heard Lindsey Williams? Heard him on the radio a while back, talking about how the New World Order is intentionally goading us into accumulating massive debt, so that they can come bail us out in four years. In return for refunding all our debt, they will require individuals, states, the US Federal Government, and many other countries to give up their freedoms and sovereignty and submit to the New World Order. Sounds conspiracy theory-ish, and it is, but we know from Scripture that this is going to happen eventually, so who knows? Maybe Lindsey Williams will be right. In any case, the only thing we can do is get right with God if we aren't already, and stay right with God if we already are. No matter what happens, we are in for quite a ride ahead.

We have been hearing the same New World Order/Illuminati/Trilateral Commission/Conquering the world without firing a shot/End Times nonsense for over fifty years.

Nobody is a bonafide fortune teller—not even Lindsey Williams.

 

[BelievingIsObeying]

We have been hearing the same New World Order/Illuminati/Trilateral Commission/Conquering the world without firing a shot/End Times nonsense for over fifty years.

Nobody is a bonafide fortune teller—not even Lindsey Williams.

It's been a lot longer than fifty years with different names. The sky is always falling to someone.

 

[DaisyDay]

Taxing the rich may not be the solution. However, given your demonstrated proclivity for simplistic solutions, I propose one, the economy can be rectified by reducing social welfare programs.

Compare the quality of poverty in the US to that of a century ago before social welfare programs were put into place. Compare the quality of life for poor people in countries with social welfare programs and those without.

 

[DaisyDay]

And most of us when we find our debt too high, stop borrowing

Most of us, when we find our debt too high, do not actively seek to reduce our income.

 

[HonestTruth]

Taxing the rich may not be the solution. However, given your demonstrated proclivity for simplistic solutions, I propose one, the economy can be rectified by reducing social welfare programs.

As a presumably former student at Notre Dame you would (or should) know that taxing the rich, as has been done for decades prior to the Reagan-Bush era, reduces the deficit and improves the economy. Case in point: the Clinton years = higher job creation, record surplus, no foreign wars, and the World trade Center standing majestically over NYC. If that is not credible for you, open up a history book or two and you will know that to be true.

 

[HonestTruth]

Wolseley,

Let's start with the wages, perks, and bennies sucked up by members of Congress.

We can go there after eliminating the corporate welfare state, esp in the Pentagon.

 

[NotreDame]

Compare the quality of poverty in the US to that of a century ago before social welfare programs were put into place. Compare the quality of life for poor people in countries with social welfare programs and those without.

What exactly is such a comparison going to disclose? What, exactly, is meant by the phrase "quality of poverty"?

You may be committing the fallacy of false cause when comparing the quality of life of poor people between countries because the disparity in the standard of living can be attributed to other causes, such as an advanced economy, an advanced monetary and banking system, a strong currency, and so forth.

 

[NotreDame]

As a presumably former student at Notre Dame you would (or should) know that taxing the rich, as has been done for decades prior to the Reagan-Bush era, reduces the deficit and improves the economy. Case in point: the Clinton years = higher job creation, record surplus, no foreign wars, and the World trade Center standing majestically over NYC. If that is not credible for you, open up a history book or two and you will know that to be true.

My educational background is not germane to this dialogue.

I am dubious "taxing the rich, as has been done for decades prior to the Reagan-Bush era" is an accurate statement. First, it is misleading because during the tenure of both Reagan-Bush, the rich were taxed and paid taxes. So, your suggestion the rich were not taxed during the tenure of the Reagan-Bush presidencies is erroneous.

Second, JFK advocated for and received a tax reduction for the rich and corporate America, along with everyone else. Income taxes were cut by 20% for those paying income tax. Corporate taxes were also reduced. It has been argued these tax reductions stimulated the economy and there is evidence to support this claim. This is an example where tax reduction stimulates the economy, you know, "open up a history book or two and you will know that to be true."

Now, what your example ignores is taxes on the rich during the tenure of the Clinton presidency was accompanied by a reduction in spending. It has been argued, by some economists, a reduction in spending stimulated the economy as opposed to Clinton's taxes on the rich. Furthermore, Clinton signed into law policies designed to stimulate the economy, such as increasing home ownership, during his presidency. Of course there are some who espouse the view the combination of taxing the rich and a reduction in government spending stimulated the economy, in addition to the other action taken by the government.

In other words, your simplistic "tax the rich" and the economy will recover is more fiction than reality. You know "read a history book or two and you will know that to be true."

 

[Subdood]

80% unemployed and in poverty?

When I consider the possibility of 80% unemployment and poverty, I tend to react this way instead:

 

[keith99]

When I consider the possibility of 80% unemployment and poverty, I tend to react this way instead:

But the 80% seems to refer to ever being unemployed in your lifetime.

To me 80% seems rather low.

But it seems high because of the misleading way it is presented.

99.9% of us have had a reasonably serious illness sometime in out life. But there are no headlines saying 99.9% of Americans seriously ill or near death.

 

[jgarden]

According to the Congressional Budget Office, between 1979 and 2007 incomes of the top 1% of Americans grew by an average of 275% ..... Since 1979 the average pre-tax income for the bottom 90% of households has decreased by $900, while that of the top 1% increased by over $700,000, as federal taxation became less progressive.

From 1992-2007 the top 400 income earners in the U.S. saw their income increase 392% and their average tax rate reduced by 37%.

Distribution of wealth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This "redistribution" of income that benefited the top 1% at the expense of the other 90% just didn't happen by accident, it was deliberately orchestrated by their accomplices, "the paid help" - presidents and members of Congress under the guise that tax cuts would benefit everyone.

The top 1% will continue to feel entitled to demand more, while the bottom 90% will continue to be "sheep to be sheared," until they finally stand up and demand their rightful role to share in America's prosperity.

 

[DaisyDay]

What exactly is such a comparison going to disclose?

What conditions social welfare programs alleviated.

What, exactly, is meant by the phrase "quality of poverty"?

Quality of life for people considered to be living in poverty.

You may be committing the fallacy of false cause when comparing the quality of life of poor people between countries because the disparity in the standard of living can be attributed to other causes, such as an advanced economy, an advanced monetary and banking system, a strong currency, and so forth.

That's true. I don't think there are any 1st World countries that have no social welfare programs.

 

[NotreDame]

What conditions social welfare programs alleviated.

Quality of life for people considered to be living in poverty.

That's true. I don't think there are any 1st World countries that have no social welfare programs.

You are still committing the fallacy of false cause. You assume social welfare programs are the cause but I am dubious this is true. There are other potential causes to account for the effect and you have neither eliminated them as true or demonstrated social welfare as the cause to the exclusion of the other causes for the effect.

 

[HonestTruth]

When I consider the possibility of 80% unemployment and poverty, I tend to react this way instead:

Here in the Twin Cities local reporter Chad Hartman was briefly interviewed on Channel 4's tv news about this matter. At one time he was a bleeding heart liberal. But then when it became financially expedient to do so he decided to become a conservative. When asked about that 80% number even he, a newly converted conservative, said it was nothing more than "hyperbole".

If there was any truth to the claim that 80% are going to face poverty I would grieve. But the reality is that the problems that exist today are a matter of choice for the powers that be and are readily correctable. Thus, to me, the 80% is nothing more than an exaggeration, hyperbole, and one designed to stifle the progress that has been made by the present administration. If people would only stop obstructing his agenda and work together to advance his ideals there would be no talk of poverty and unemployment. Instead we would be talking about successes and seeking further ways to advance the interests of society's majority, not its elitist minority.

 

[HonestTruth]

My educational background is not germane to this dialogue.

I am dubious "taxing the rich, as has been done for decades prior to the Reagan-Bush era" is an accurate statement. First, it is misleading because during the tenure of both Reagan-Bush, the rich were taxed and paid taxes. So, your suggestion the rich were not taxed during the tenure of the Reagan-Bush presidencies is erroneous.

Second, JFK advocated for and received a tax reduction for the rich and corporate America, along with everyone else. Income taxes were cut by 20% for those paying income tax. Corporate taxes were also reduced. It has been argued these tax reductions stimulated the economy and there is evidence to support this claim. This is an example where tax reduction stimulates the economy, you know, "open up a history book or two and you will know that to be true."

Now, what your example ignores is taxes on the rich during the tenure of the Clinton presidency was accompanied by a reduction in spending. It has been argued, by some economists, a reduction in spending stimulated the economy as opposed to Clinton's taxes on the rich. Furthermore, Clinton signed into law policies designed to stimulate the economy, such as increasing home ownership, during his presidency. Of course there are some who espouse the view the combination of taxing the rich and a reduction in government spending stimulated the economy, in addition to the other action taken by the government.

In other words, your simplistic "tax the rich" and the economy will recover is more fiction than reality. You know "read a history book or two and you will know that to be true."

The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993 was passed without a single Republican vote:


What is the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993? | PoliticianScandal.com


Federal revenues increased in 1994 by 8.28 percent over 1993 and continued to steadily rise. How the Republicans can claim credit for this is beyond all reason since they didn't vote for it. In 1997 there was a change in the tax code whose biggest change was the reduction in taxes for home buyers. Again, revenues increased as did the surplus.

When Republican Bush created his changes to the corporate tax law, it ended that surplus and created the deficit we now see. In fact his $136 billion dollar welfare gift to the wealthy elites was a dismal failure:

Bush quietly signs corporate tax-cut bill - Business - Stocks & economy | NBC News


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/21/the-bush-tax-cut-failure/?_r=0



Those who read their history lessons know this quite well. Of course, if you get your "news" from Fox you wouldn't know these Truths.

 

[Subdood]

Here in the Twin Cities local reporter Chad Hartman was briefly interviewed on Channel 4's tv news about this matter. At one time he was a bleeding heart liberal. But then when it became financially expedient to do so he decided to become a conservative. When asked about that 80% number even he, a newly converted conservative, said it was nothing more than "hyperbole".

If there was any truth to the claim that 80% are going to face poverty I would grieve. But the reality is that the problems that exist today are a matter of choice for the powers that be and are readily correctable. Thus, to me, the 80% is nothing more than an exaggeration, hyperbole, and one designed to stifle the progress that has been made by the present administration. If people would only stop obstructing his agenda and work together to advance his ideals there would be no talk of poverty and unemployment. Instead we would be talking about successes and seeking further ways to advance the interests of society's majority, not its elitist minority.

In other words, you simply don't believe it.

You've no data to suggest otherwise, and because the report was from Fox News you assume it's nothing but hyperbole, exaggeration and designed strictly to "stifle the progress that has been made by this administration."

Moreover, your premise is that were no one to oppose Obama's agenda and everyone work instead to promote his ideals that "there'd be no talk of poverty and unemployment." That IS what you wrote.

So, really? May I ask, based on what? What evidence, what proof, what facts do you have that his ideals and his agenda would result in no poverty or unemployment, let alone anything else he's promised? Huh? What? History?? Where have his ideals EVER worked? Hmm?

He's been in office over 5 1/2 years now, nearly the first half of which was with total Democrat control of the House and Senate.

That there's a Republican House now is no excuse for his failures, for his ineptitude, his lack of focus, his utter inability to lead... There's got to be some point in time when people on the left quit blaming Bush, or the Republican House, or Fox News, or "the rich," or whomever/whatever for "stifling" Obama's agenda and his ideals and begin to realize they made a mistake electing that phoney whose sole claim to fame is blaming others? I mean, seriously, when is the left going to quit blaming everyone else and take a good long look in the TV and mirror at the real problem?

When is the left going to quit pointing fingers for where we are now 5+ full years into this man's presidency (and their anticipated utopia) and realize that irrespective of George Bush, irrespective of Republicans, irrespective of Fox News, irrespective of past events, irrespective of all else that Obama's nothing more than a complete failure, a bust, another bag of political wind whose sole purpose, sole reason for living is your vote and your willingness to obediently swallow his polished campaign schtick hook, line, and sinker without the remotest PROOF that he could do, would do, or even will do what he promised?

Thanks to you, this phoney is living high on the hog, like profligate royalty while we talk about poverty and unemployment.

It's not my fault we're in the mess we're in. I didn't vote for that person.

 

[Bedford]

<snip>
you make the most frequent blunder others here make when criticizing anything and anyone even a hair's width to the right of you - spouting unfounded opinions based strictly on preconceived biases and prejudices formed who-knows-how-or-where without the remotest warrant for any of it.

...just when I thought my disgust for leftism and the Democrat Party could sink no further...

 

[morningstar2651]

Wasn't it supposed to trickle down?

I'm tired of being trickled upon.