RE: War on the Poor?

RE: War on the Poor? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

MrRodgers -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/16/2017 5:44:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The reason for meals on wheels was needed in the first place is because people were dying of hunger Because the community charity failed. Dismally. Well then those are the kind of discussions we need to start having. Where has the old-fashioned values of caring about our elderly gone and is that the kind of society we want to be. We can't expect the Federal Government to supply all of our humanity for us. They don't have the money yet the feds do have the money to throw at corp. welfare, corp. subsidies and of course, defense and their boondoggles and in fact are taking $52 billion we do have from these programs you discuss and giving it to the pentagon.

vincentML -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/16/2017 7:24:59 PM)
Aylee quote: I think that the simple left versus right binary that seems to be in favor on this forum does not work that well with any of the economies on this Earth. Chavis was a socialist and so was the constitution he helped create which did nationalize so much. Cuba - they could have fixed their economy. Castro liked it like it was. All power to the party! Seriously though, with just a little work it could have been a wonderful tourist place again. And yes, the Petro states are pretty screwed because the only thing they have is oil. They have neglected to create anything else to export, other than terrorists. Absolutely agree with your comments except on Cuba. The Cubans were trying to gain independent nationhood since the 19th Century. First from Spain and then from the United States. There was a great deal of anti-American sentiment in the 1950s during that "wonderful tourist" era. Batista was a thug; nearly all levels of Cuban society supported Castro.

Edwird -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/16/2017 7:26:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka quote: ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire By system do you mean the super rich and their feeble tax returns? Feel free to stack up the coinage of the super rich versus pauper of wretch. An argument of 1/10, or one in 1/100, or 1/1000 plays the system of claiming poverty is no argument at all, now is it. No, i mean the middle class where a husband and wife both work and they limit themselves to 2 kids because they are responsible and know that's all they can afford and they pay their taxes so that some lazy fat ass can stay home with their 8 kids, all funded by the government, eating cheetos and drinking soda with their food stamp money. So, TANF providing the cheetos and cola in a small livingroom it paid for- bad. TARP providing the lobster bisque and Dom Pérignon to 8 fat asses on deck the 370' yacht w/ helicopter pad it paid for- good.

tamaka -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/16/2017 7:31:06 PM)
Nope... they're both bad, don't you think so?

Edwird -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/16/2017 7:35:55 PM)
Your making much noise about the former and resolute silence concerning the latter may have misdirected me from your actual inscrutable thinking on the matter.

vincentML -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/16/2017 7:44:35 PM)
Bosco quote: Millions and millions and millions of Chinese were starved to death under communism, you can't blame that on any embargo. And Cuba had no embargo with the Soviet Union or other communist countries, so what was the problem From 1958 to 1962 China experienced unusual droughts in some areas and floods in others; the grain yield fell off. So, yeah, millions died from mismanagement and hostile weather. The same happened in the plains states here in 1934 - whenever. Millions did not die here due to the great Dust Storms and droughts in Oklahoma and environs. Many Oakies migrated west to work in California orchards (read Grapes of Wrath) Maybe Chinese peasants had no place to go, I dunno.

tamaka -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/16/2017 7:47:05 PM)
Correct me if i'm wrong but didn't those that got bailed out by TARP have to pay it back with interest?

Edwird -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/16/2017 9:19:02 PM)
A lot of it did, pennies of interest. There was a lot of shell gaming involved so it's hard to say how much, actually. But they paid it back with the cheapest money in decades, after they got their many billions per company paid only because TARP provided the money they otherwise rightly should have forfeited. TARP was directly responsible for holding afloat companies like AIG et al. so they could pay Goldman Sachs and others for their wrong side of the bet, which under non-corporate welfare circumstances would have resulted in the latter losing a ton of money as they fairly should have. That move (among other such) was an outright gift from tax payers. Did TARP or the investment banks or mortgage banks give any of that money back to the former home owners or former job holders whose wealth they destroyed? In any case it was effectively an ex post TARP financing of massive fraud and theft from which billions were made, and destruction of wealth of millions of people for whom no restitution was even considered by TARP. And who paid all the money for the sharp increase in unemployment claims? Another gift in paying for damage the banks caused and should rightfully have paid for.

DesideriScuri -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 4:06:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery While we're at it, how about the Death Tax? Or for that matter, calling the end of temporary tax cuts supposed to sunset "tax increases" as if they were sudden new charges? That's an interesting point, MM. Some of it might depend on just how long those "temporary" tax cuts have been around. If people have gotten used to the tax cut over several years, and/or those temporary cuts have been extended several times, it could be phrased as a tax increase. It's not, technically, a tax increase (even if you end up paying more taxes), since it's not a change to the laws. A tax cut with a sunset provision has that change already written, so if you look at "current rules," that change is already there. How about we also change the way Federal spending cuts are reported by not allowing the "cuts" to be reported if they don't result in lower spending than current spending? A reduction of future increases aren't really cutting spending, if the spending is still more than what we're spending now.

Lucylastic -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 4:16:09 AM)
How do you feel about the cost of his weekend jaunts to mar a lago five times so far, at three million a trip... Let alone the cost of melania and Barons housing. Extra security at the tower, flights, his elder kids security Why cut funding to that allows other programs to feed kids and seniors, cancel heating help for the poor, and say they dont show a profit or "value" and give tax breaks to certain investors?

DesideriScuri -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 4:25:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I have to wonder why there is a 3.8 percent tax cuts for high income payers. which will save...158 billion for those people but by cutting hundreds of billions from ~~medicare~~ Medicaid they are not attacking the poor? The poor still getting the shaft and the blame. Just a small correction: Medicaid is the system for the poor. Medicare is for the elderly. How much of that decrease in funding is going to actually result in less care? How much of the tax cuts aren't limited to just the high income payers? How much will closing loopholes (part of the tax plan) offset that 3.8% cut? How much of a difference will block grants make to the efficiency of Medicaid, thereby lessening the impact of overall spending cuts to Medicaid? States don't have to change their Medicaid programs at all. What will change (under the plan), is how much is being given to States for Medicaid. Considering Medicaid is really a State level program why should taxpayers from one State have any of their taxes given to another State for care of the poor citizens of that other State? Should NY taxpayers pay for Arkansas's poor? Or, should an Arkansas taxpayer pay for Arkansas' poor? Should all States have the same rules for Medicaid?

Lucylastic -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 4:31:04 AM)
my bad on the name, being a fiscal conservative Im asking why cutting so many poor and sick people related programs sits ok with you.

DesideriScuri -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 4:32:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Corporate share of federal tax revenue has dropped by two-thirds in 60 years — from 32% in 1952 to 10% in 2013. How much are they paying in taxes compared to 60 years ago?

DesideriScuri -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 4:35:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML HERE IS A COPY OF THE MINE SAFETY ACT OF 1977 upon which the regulations are based. The O-admin published the regulations before inauguration day to take effect in May. Trump put a freeze on these and all new regulations. So, it's, technically, not really a reduction in regulations, since they haven't taken effect yet. Way to mislead in the OP.

DesideriScuri -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 4:42:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: tamaka Meals on Wheels should be handled by the states. It is a local community issue. Then perhaps Texas and California should deal with the Mexican border between themselves on a State level, rather than expecting the Fed to handle it for them. Considering National Security and immigration are Federal authorities (according to the US Constitution, anyway), the ball is in the Fed's court. Don't you remember when Arizona tried to change the way Federal immigration policies are applied, by requiring immigration status checks (at legal stops) when the police suspect a person is not legally in the US? The only change was the requirement of status check, rather than the officer using his/her own judgment as to do a status check or not.

DesideriScuri -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 4:46:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic The reason for meals on wheels was needed in the first place is because people were dying of hunger Because the community charity failed. Dismally. Did charities fail? Or were they prevented from succeeding by Big Gov? For instance...... http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgovernment/seven-arrested-while-serving-food-to-homeless-in-tampa/2308868

Edwird -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 4:49:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail LOL, maybe them red welfare states will start paying taxes. They don't have enough money to support the blue state corporate welfare economy that steals their wealth before they step out the door, sorry.

DesideriScuri -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 4:58:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic How do you feel about the cost of his weekend jaunts to mar a lago five times so far, at three million a trip... Let alone the cost of melania and Barons housing. Extra security at the tower, flights, his elder kids security Someone posted that Obama repaid many costs associated with his family travels. When did he repay those costs? Was it around the same time those costs occurred, or when? I honestly don't know much about it. If he didn't repay it until later in his Presidency, The Donald should be granted the same time frame, no? I would prefer President Trump spend less time outside of DC, but if the rules allow it, then the rules allow it. I didn't begrudge President Obama (or the First Family) their time away, either. quote: Why cut funding to that allows other programs to feed kids and seniors, cancel heating help for the poor, and say they dont show a profit or "value" and give tax breaks to certain investors? Those two things aren't even remotely connected. Why did the Obama Administration spend millions to "green" companies (many of which went belly up without repaying their loans) rather than spending it on the homeless, the poor, the aging infrastructure, etc.? Those are just as connected.

mnottertail -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 4:59:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwird quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail LOL, maybe them red welfare states will start paying taxes. They don't have enough money to support the blue state corporate welfare economy that steals their wealth before they step out the door, sorry. But the blue states do, and enough left over to carry the red welfare states? Why dont the red welfare states move to mexico or russia then?

DesideriScuri -> RE: War on the Poor? (3/19/2017 5:03:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic my bad on the name, I figured it was just an error. No big deal. quote: being a fiscal conservative Im asking why cutting so many poor and sick people related programs sits ok with you. Who's duty is it to provide welfare for the sick/poor? Is it the Federal government's duty? Is it a State's duty? Is it a County's duty? Is it a government level under the County level's duty? Is it the duty of the local community where the poor/sick are located? I don't believe it's the Federal Government's responsibility (or even an authorized power) to pay for programs for the poor/sick. Thus, I have no problem with cutting Federal spending on those programs.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

6.054688E-02