Study: More Than Half a Trillion Dollars Spent on Welfare But Poverty Levels Unaffect

Indie

So one moment you claim you have defended your ideas from criticism but when asks to produce actually evidence of that you suddenly turn around and say you have no idea what needs to be defended?

This is a con trick you’ve used a lot of over the years, this is why I’m confident calling you a liar whenever you claim you could defend your ideas because you never have because you can’t.

So I ask again why do you promote ideas that you seem totally incapable of defending from criticisms in any rational or reasonable way?

But how does that fit in with your idea that wealth be given greater voting power so it can block the majority vote? I mean we were talking about electing representatives.

I mean as often stated my preferred model for electing representatives is some type of PR system rather than a first past the post.

You seem to be hinting at some kind of block to override the majority?

Oh hell Indie stop restating stuff and begin addressing the criticisms of it –I mean we have been through this many, many, many, many…times.

The ‘small’ government idea as has been gone through at length would only seem to increase the power and influence of wealth, criticisms you still have not addressed in anything like a rational or reasonable way (you have just told me I’m wrong because you think I’m wrong).

Also yours seems to be an ideology that covers all aspects of governance from the national to the local, to keep banging on about the ‘federal’ is a misdirection, because you want the wealth serving ideology to be at every level.

But how does that fit in with your idea that wealth be given greater voting power so it can block the majority vote?

Power should originate with the people and not ever simply from elected politicians, who seldom, if ever, are elected with a mandate over every issue that can be imagined.

As with many of your ideas this raises more questions than answers.

Again you seem to be hinting that you therefore think voters should not have the power to choose representatives or have ‘betters’ (who now better) placed so they can bloke the popular vote? Like the idea you suggested that gave wealth greater voting power so it can block the majority vote? Or are you saying there would be some type of interview or exam before voters were allowed to vote and those that are deemed not to know enough are excluded? If so who would decide what needed to be known?

Also this would seem like a problem of education, information and probably most important of all honest debate.

Take you for example you promote ideas that you seem totally incapable of defending from criticism. You have basically been unable to debate in anything like an honest way since coming to the site depending instead on bluster, misrepresentation and above all evasion.

But you think you know the issues and are convinced your ideas are the solution to them, the question is why do you have that belief when the opposite seems to be indicated?

Again your either/or mentality seems to get in the way of you thinking in anything like an objective way – as I’ve said many many many times to me its not a matter of either collectivism or individualism it is about a balance.

To me there has to be a balance between the interests of the individual and the community they live in.

The thing is that what has to be understood is that not all individuals are equal in power and influence. It seems to me that some on the right try to bamboozle people into believing that all individual are equal in power and influence as a way of dismantling many of the mechanisms in place that are there to stop the more power individuals from exploiting the weaker.

 

Bal,

Our differing means of solving problems are irreconcilable, therefore it is pointless to argue them any further, even if we could agree on the ends desirable of achieving, which probably we also could not.

 

Indie

To repeat for the thousandths time – I don’t care if you agree with me or not I’m just trying to work out why you seem to promote ideas that you seem totally incapable of defending from criticism in any rational or reasonable way.

It not about our views being irreconcilable it is about your inability to address the criticisms levelled at your views.

And refusing to address those criticisms doesn’t make them go away if just seems to indicate your ideas are deeply if not mortally flawed.

 

Bal,

Likewise, and for the last time, I only promote views which I have found to be successful in producing desirable results in real life situations, which are not for the purpose of giving greater power to those with great wealth, or letting people starve or die alongside the road or any other illusory conception you may wish to imply.

If you disagree with my views or methods, simply refrain from employing them, but respect the freedom of others to refrain from employing your methods as well. People will, and do help other people when left to their own to do so, and I might add, much much more effectively and efficiently than government does or can do. Or are you simply afraid that you would not receive help if needed, based on the attitude you exude toward fellow humans?

 

Indie

Can you please stop restating things that still have outstanding criticisms levelled at them.

And for the possibly thousandth time – ignoring criticisms does not make it go away it just seems to indicate your ideas are deeply if not mortally flawed.

And for what seems like the thousandth time – I don’t care if either of our methods are used I’m just trying to work out why you promote ideas that you seem totally incapable of defending from criticism in any rational or reasonable way.

 

bal,

Criticize all you like, when methods are found to produce desirable results I feel no need to defend them further. When methods produce undesirable results, then one might find a need to develop new ideas.

 

Indie

We have been through this many many many times – you can claim anything it doesn’t make it true and given your record on honesty…well…

And as pointed out to you on numerous occasions if your views had produce desirable results shouldn’t that make them easier to defend in a rational and reasonable way, but instead you just say that because you think they’re good then they must be good and so any criticism of them must be wrong.

To repeat if they’re supposedly such good ideas why can’t you address the criticisms of them?

 

Bal,

Don't take my word, simply apply my methods and look at the results. Seeing is believing, or would you disagree with that also?

 

Indie

LOL - If your methods in life are anything like your methods in this forum – evasion, misrepresentation, plain lying – then I don’t think any honest person would want to emulate them.

 

Bal,

Come on now.
Plain lying? What are you calling a lie?
Misrepresentation? What have I misrepresented?
Evasion? Your inability to understand?

In every thread you disregard the topic, and espouse little more than accusations.

This thread, for example is on poverty, why do you avoid discussing it?

How, in simple, clear and concise terms would you define poverty? Can we at least make an attempt to reach agreement on defining what poverty is?

 

Indie

I’ve called you out as a liar many times when you claim to have addressed something when you clearly hadn’t and challenged you to prove me wrong – a challenge you have never taken up.

You do it all the time stating assertions about my view that you know to be untrue. For example just above with the ‘collectivist’ jib, its doesn’t seem to matter how many times or in what detail I demolish the assertions you just misrepresent again further down the line.

You’ve tried to pull that ‘inability to understand’ con game several times it isn’t credible. You only need to look through you post to see the evasion.

As I’ve pointed out to you many times, I go where I’ve led. I’ve often returned to the subject only for you to go off somewhere else.

LOL – have you not been reading the posts I went and read the report before posting and since then I’ve tried to get back to the subject – what was your contribution, oh yes, that the unemployed should become forced labour, that idea still have a number of criticisms still outstanding against it.

LOL - oh for fuck sake man read the fucking posts – I’ve been making it plain that I don’t think there are simple, clear and concise term to define ‘poverty’, do you ever actually think about what’s posted or do you just hit out from your right wing gut? I mean that would explain a lot – the gut isn’t a great thinker and is very unlikely to come up with anything rational or reasonable.

I mean we went through this - poverty is subjective it can be seen differently and have differing values to differing people and is impacted by circumstance, time and place.

For example you said in this tread post 164

And I pointed out that you live in a country (Laos I believe) with a low annual wage so I pointed out -

You receive a few thousand above $15,080 while the locals get around $2000-$2200 per year. That’s roughly 7.5 times more than the local annual average wage the average wage in the US is around $40,000 7.5 times that would be say $300,000 I think you could live rather well in the US on that?

But saying that you where receiving “about four thousand below what you claim to be the poverty level” you seemed to be implying that was still a fair amount to live on and pay taxes on in the US (which was the point you seemed to be making), but you don’t live in the US you live somewhere were your retirement income is way, way above the normal local’s annual income.

Yes you may think that $15,080 is a great income and it would very much seem to be where you live but is it such a great income for the US?

 

Bal,

I'm not trying to prove anything to you, I simple tell it like it is from my viewpoint which I can only do from real life experience as opposed your more philosophical based opinions.

Do you deny having a more collectivist view in opposition to mine and many others I've seen you disagree with? You seem to dislike having labels applied to you, yet go out of your way to apply them in an effort to denigrate others.

Are you claiming that you do understand, but simply refuse to accept the meaning of what is or has been written?

Here again, you mis-state what I had written, I never proposed the implementation of forced labor.

You can't find a way to define poverty in terms applicable to all? If not then how do you begin to reduce it in a way you would define as reasonable and rational?

I presented myself only as an example, showing that there are ways to avoid living in poverty, and I availed myself of one. I also could have lived my entire life in poverty had I remained living where I was born as there was no jobs and little prospects of jobs becoming available when I set out on my own. Of course there were few, if any government programs available at that time so the only option was to look elsewhere to improve my life. I guess you might say I 'forced into labor' as no options existed at that time.

Would you disagree with poverty being described simply as "lacking the means by which one provides their needs"?

 

Welfare will not get you on your feet. It will knock you to your knees and keep you there. The title on this thread is an oxymoron.

If you get a 725 ph job they take your food stamps and medicade. and you still can't make ends meet. Your kids stay sick bc you can't afford healthcare, you feed your kids crap bc that's all you can afford, your kids get sick bc of lack of proper nutrition and the circle continues. You lose you job bc you have sick kids so you go back on food stamps and medicade. There are no Welfare Check in Texas. If you have a job and pay daycare they will help you with daycare but that's it.. No welfare checks here for yrs bc of the Illegals

 

You want to cut back on shit, then get rid of the illegals. They are draining us dry. Wake the hell up and CLOSE THE BORDERS. Legalize MJ so the wetbacks will go home and leave our country. They suck up all our resources and get paid cash for their jobs they took from CITIZENS and send it to Mexico to support their 10,000,000 relatives.

That's where all the WELFARE $ is going.. Wise up.

 

You sit there and say this and that about the system of things but you offer no real solution. Ya just want to hear yourself talk. Show everyone how informed you are. You may READ or Watch the news but ya dont know shit about it until you have experienced it.. Come down off your throne and get real.

Your 'Speculation' does not help anything, it's just hot air being blown around the forums. Ya stick your head in the sand when it comes to immigration. You look the other way and act like it doesn't exist. You re-elect a president that has become America's downfall. He gave amnesty to the illegals so they would vote for him. Now they are pouring in by the thousands. And They're Coming To Your Town Next.. maybe then you will see and know.

 

Guys, lookit here, I've experienced some real shit.

Man this person above is going to be super pissed when the immigration reform that's coming around this second term includes amnesty.

 

......you do NOT understand the border.

For starters, the net flow from mexico is negative -- it's worse here, they go home. People who you think are "wetbacks" live here, they are americans. People comming now are from central or south america..... know why? because we used their entire contenant as a bananna plantation and CIA-backed-dictator-experiment and fucking ruined it there, so there's nothing to do but come here. On that note, you live in land stolen from the nation of mexico in a war of aggression, before we extended out genocide of native americans to mexicans inhabiting that area -- so come off it, you're the one in mexico, they're not in "america".

Further, the texas economy depends heavily on immigrant labor, illegal or otherwise. Other state enonomies are hurting because of their partisan legislature vote-grabbing immigration bills, and our legislature is not stupid enough to do that. Further, how would you suggest one goes about finding all the "wetbacks" -- with an az style "illegal to be brown" law? And how do you think somebody just closes a land border like the one we have with mexico? How do you think you can act like a police state as far as other countries citizens go, but still be free for american citizens? How can you have a xenophobic us/them witch-hunt mentality, without damaging america further?

or, if you agree with indy, you think poor people everywhere are great, as long as rich people can get richer off of them.

Texas doesn't want to give you a welfare check no matter who's illegally where, that's just a nice excuse. This is the state that spent the fucking children's medicaid money to give Dell and Toyota huge tax incentives to build industry here -- and they didn't decide to spend it that way just because "illegal" children might have gotten health-care from it.

 

This is not how amnesty or voting work.

I can see mexico on a clear day, I don't see your big border fiasco.

 

There's always a weird cognitive dissonance with people who rail against illegal immigrants. They're all coming here to mooch off our often near non existent benefits because they simultaneously work so hard they're taking all our jobs.

 

I am not responsible for what happened 300 yrs ago.. how rude of you even to imply it. And I really dont care what you think. You dont live is a state that borders mexico.

If their country is so, beautiful and furtel land in abundence why come here.. bc of the politico.. Their gov steals all their $ and leaves their country in ruin, with feces floating down the streets and garbage piled so high you could not possibly see mexico for the trash for miles and miles.

I been to mexico. I've see it with my own eyes. I call them wetbacks bc they are illegal. They are criminals here illegally. They cant go through immigration to get here legally and be naturalized and inoculated for disease. They do not take an oath to defend our country. They dont pay taxes or put the money they make back into our system.

They're not just on the farms my friend. They are in all the state agency and construction work. In our oil fields and every other line of work the can take from us bc they work for cash and cheaper then min wage.

That is what is going on. Every Fricken nation 'took' over land from someone else. I am sick of hearing that crap. That's all you got. They weren't even around then nor were their parent or grandparents. So, give me a break. That runs on the same lines as slavery.. nobody that is alive today was a slave or a slave owner.

You think our borders should be open.. I would leave the planet if that were the case.