isadore;1161671 wrote:why not.

Exactly. I'm glad we agree that minorities should be given less handouts and more jobs. Now the question is, how do we get said minorities to get off the couch and get a job like the rest of us?

sleeper;1161674 wrote:Exactly. I'm glad we agree that minorities should be given less handouts and more jobs. Now the question is, how do we get said minorities to get off the couch and get a job like the rest of us?

gosh another on your long list of non sequiturs.
What we need is a system that provides for those Americans who are in need.

isadore;1161684 wrote:gosh another on your long list of non sequiturs.

I don't think you want to see the scoreboard on this...especially if we add in straw men arguments.

Isadore: King of the Logical Fallacies

hardly
sound like one of those guys that rave on and on about 'obama the socialist and on and on.

isadore;1161670 wrote:of course it is, as you set there with your degree already and were just on a countdown to big bucks.

So that somehow made the current economic situation different? You must have failed math in HS if somehow family of 4 making around $12k for 3 years is different for those 3 years than a family of 4 making $12k and happen to be not in college.

jmog;1161764 wrote:So that somehow made the current economic situation different? You must have failed math in HS if somehow family of 4 making around $12k for 3 years is different for those 3 years than a family of 4 making $12k and happen to be not in college.

gosh lets see
you were in the situation by choice which is not true of the large majority of those in need
you were relatively young, not suffering from severe handicap, had a two parent household and you knew that the situation was transient and then into the big bucks

isadore;1161711 wrote:hardly
sound like one of those guys that rave on and on about 'obama the socialist and on and on.

That would be an ad hominem fallacy.

no just a description based on your previous statements

So, not only is it fallacious argument, it's based on a fallacious assumption. I'll guarantee you can't find a post by me on this board where I've called Obama a socialist. This is only my 60th post. It shouldn't be hard to sort through them.

jmog;1161555 wrote:You can't be serious...family of four, on their own, <$13k income...please explain to me how that is not 'true poverty'. I would love to hear it since I lived it.

I was a typical college student for awhile, living at home, etc and you're correct, even though I only made about $8000 those years I was not truly poor.

However, when I made the decision to get married and have kids, and THEN go back to school full time...I most definitely was in poverty.

jmog;1161764 wrote:So that somehow made the current economic situation different? You must have failed math in HS if somehow family of 4 making around $12k for 3 years is different for those 3 years than a family of 4 making $12k and happen to be not in college.

You were unfairly endowed with an extra dose of intelligence and work ethic that enabled you to succeed. The only logical solution would have been for the government to confiscate a portion of said intelligence and work ethic and give it to the less fortunate who sit on the couch and watch Oprah.

Altor;1161824 wrote:So, not only is it fallacious argument, it's based on a fallacious assumption. I'll guarantee you can't find a post by me on this board where I've called Obama a socialist. This is only my 60th post. It shouldn't be hard to sort through them.

It wasn't hard at all

Altor wrote: Of course! I should have known that Obama's European socialist views were Bush's fault.:rolleyes:

Thread &#8220;Disgusted with the Obama Administration 9/19/2011 4:49 PM

thanks, I enjoyed that.

isadore;1161782 wrote:gosh lets see
you were in the situation by choice which is not true of the large majority of those in need
you were relatively young, not suffering from severe handicap, had a two parent household and you knew that the situation was transient and then into the big bucks

1. Majority of those in poverty aren't there by some choices of their own? Do you have a link to research to prove this?
2. Being young and healthy doesn't change the financial status, so you still fail at math.
3. Having a 2 parent home making $12k was another mouth to feed vs a 1 parent home making $12k. So your argument still fails.
4. Being transient does NOT change the economic situation one bit.

jmog;1162146 wrote:1. Majority of those in poverty aren't there by some choices of their own? Do you have a link to research to prove this?
2. Being young and healthy doesn't change the financial status, so you still fail at math.
3. Having a 2 parent home making $12k was another mouth to feed vs a 1 parent home making $12k. So your argument still fails.
4. Being transient does NOT change the economic situation one bit.

1. http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/#2
http://news.yahoo.com/report-shows-more-older-americans-living-alone-102211021.html
http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/exclusivecommentary.aspx?id=0e1ca1a2-e921-4349-866b-273a2216c664
4.1 million over 65 in poverty
16.5 million children living in poverty
We could also throw in many of the unemployed who lost jobs through no fault of their own.
some 32 percent of disabled adults live in poverty
2. Having two parents at home makes it easier to work. And watch the kids
3. A 4 person household each has to feed 4 people
4. Being in a situation when you have a college degree and are about to get another is a much different economic situation than for those without those alternatives. In spending now, with major purchases only on short term delay and in terms of credit, ability to borrow, much different situations
Gosh a ruddies another little point, heck if you hadn&#8217;t been taking all those classes at the time, you could have been making more money to feed your kid. But you decided to let them sacrifice for those years. Did they have a say in the matter.

isadore;1162245 wrote:1. http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/#2
http://news.yahoo.com/report-shows-more-older-americans-living-alone-102211021.html
http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/exclusivecommentary.aspx?id=0e1ca1a2-e921-4349-866b-273a2216c664
4.1 million over 65 in poverty
16.5 million children living in poverty
We could also throw in many of the unemployed who lost jobs through no fault of their own.
some 32 percent of disabled adults live in poverty
2. Having two parents at home makes it easier to work. And watch the kids
3. A 4 person household each has to feed 4 people
4. Being in a situation when you have a college degree and are about to get another is a much different economic situation than for those without those alternatives. In spending now, with major purchases only on short term delay and in terms of credit, ability to borrow, much different situations
Gosh a ruddies another little point, heck if you hadn&#8217;t been taking all those classes at the time, you could have been making more money to feed your kid. But you decided to let them sacrifice for those years. Did they have a say in the matter.

My kids ate fine, we did without in other areas...no cell phone, no cable TV, we didn't go out to eat pretty much ever, etc. No one was wanting for food.

Your links list about 16.5 million children in poverty. I will give you that these are no fault of their own. Just because you are over 65 and in poverty does not mean it is of no fault of your own. Same with being unemployed.

However, even if I accept your numbers as all "no fault of their own" that is 20 million. Nearly 50 million are in poverty right now (good job current administration) that is AT BEST 40%. By definition a 'majority' is more than 50%. So you, again, are wrong.

2. There is a reason that having 2 parent homes changes the 'poverty' level only slightly even with having another mouth to feed. That is exactly the reason you state, easier child care. That doesn't change the fact that a 2 parent home is still in poverty. According to the government the poverty line for a 1 parent home with 2 children is $17k, for a 2 parent home it is $22k. So, according to the US government, the 'suffering' of a 1 parent home at $17k is the same as a 2 parent home at $22k. Now...I was at $12k, but somehow it was easier right?

You still haven't stated how in those 3 years, the economic situation was different. Yes I was going to graduate school, but the economics of the 3 years were no different than if I wasn't going to graduate school.

isadore;1162245 wrote:1. http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/#2
http://news.yahoo.com/report-shows-more-older-americans-living-alone-102211021.html
http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/exclusivecommentary.aspx?id=0e1ca1a2-e921-4349-866b-273a2216c664
4.1 million over 65 in poverty

You keep throwing around the word poverty as if you don't really realize what it means. We all know what poverty means, but for most of us that's very different than the poverty you are citing in your statistics, and I don't know that you understand that each country defines what income level it considers to be poverty (which means, surprise, bureacrats dependent on those votes have a self-interest in overstating poverty).

Again, truly abject poverty is living on $3 a day. And that's over 3 BILLION people globally. So truthfully you cannot get on your soapbox and preach to us about helping the "needy and desperate" while you completely ignore half the people on earth who are far, far worse off than the people you believe are in such critical need of more handouts.

gut;1162298 wrote:You keep throwing around the word poverty as if you don't really realize what it means. We all know what poverty means, but for most of us that's very different than the poverty you are citing in your statistics, and I don't know that you understand that each country defines what income level it considers to be poverty (which means, surprise, bureacrats dependent on those votes have a self-interest in overstating poverty).

Again, truly abject poverty is living on $3 a day. And that's over 3 BILLION people globally. So truthfully you cannot get on your soapbox and preach to us about helping the "needy and desperate" while you completely ignore half the people on earth who are far, far worse off than the people you believe are in such critical need of more handouts.

your indifference to the suffering of your fellow Americans is nauseating. 16.5 million American children living in poverty, 32% of American handicapped living in poverty. And what do you want to do, reduce them to 3 dollars a day. That is what you see as fair. Americans starving in the street. You have some supporters on the thread. Vote Republican and you will get your wish.

isadore;1162414 wrote:your indifference to the suffering of your fellow Americans is nauseating. 16.5 million American children living in poverty, 32% of American handicapped living in poverty. And what do you want to do, reduce them to 3 dollars a day. That is what you see as fair. Americans starving in the street. You have some supporters on the thread. Vote Republican and you will get your wish.

16.5 million children, incredible. Thankfully we don't subsidize poor parents popping out more babies that they can't afford. :rolleyes:

isadore;1162414 wrote:... Vote Republican and you will get your wish.

Right now, that's the plan but it could change. There's much yet to unfold in this upcoming election.

gut;1162298 wrote:You keep throwing around the word poverty as if you don't really realize what it means. We all know what poverty means, but for most of us that's very different than the poverty you are citing in your statistics, and I don't know that you understand that each country defines what income level it considers to be poverty (which means, surprise, bureacrats dependent on those votes have a self-interest in overstating poverty).

Again, truly abject poverty is living on $3 a day. And that's over 3 BILLION people globally. So truthfully you cannot get on your soapbox and preach to us about helping the "needy and desperate" while you completely ignore half the people on earth who are far, far worse off than the people you believe are in such critical need of more handouts.

16.5 million kids
4.1 million oldsters
You chose to ignore the 32% of the disabled living in poverty
And you condemned the aged living in poverty
12.5 million unemployed and some with a non working spouse ,including
We just about got it covered
The comparison of your household with 4 persons should be toa single mother household with 3 children, one which would in a worse situationthan yours.
Again you ignore all the advantages you have over thatsingle parent household. The head ofthat household is very unlikely to have a bachelor degree. They are not in their situation bychoice. They have no easy access to wellrewarded employment. Their ability toborrow or receive credit is well below yours. And they do not have the promise that in a few years they will be in thebig bucks.
Of course in your I got mine and screw them view of poverty,you blame them all for their situation.
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/us/

isadore;1162444 wrote:16.5 million kids
4.1 million oldsters
You chose to ignore the 32% of the disabled living in poverty
And you condemned the aged living in poverty
12.5 million unemployed and some with a non working spouse ,including
We just about got it covered
The comparison of your household with 4 persons should be toa single mother household with 3 children, one which would in a worse situationthan yours.
Again you ignore all the advantages you have over thatsingle parent household. The head ofthat household is very unlikely to have a bachelor degree. They are not in their situation bychoice. They have no easy access to wellrewarded employment. Their ability toborrow or receive credit is well below yours. And they do not have the promise that in a few years they will be in thebig bucks.
Of course in your I got mine and screw them view of poverty,you blame them all for their situation.
http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/us/

Over $5,000,000,000,000 has been spent in 48 years since LBJ announced the "War On Poverty". Seeing as how the government can't create any wealth, that means they had to take it from others. If their cut is 33%, and I'm being very conservative here, then they have removed $7,500,000,000,000 out of the economy from taxpaying citizens to make sure no one lives in poverty. A $7.5 trillion wealth transfer and the statistics you quoted are nearly the same as they were 48 years ago. In other words, the War On Poverty is a proven abject failure, and yet you, and many millions of others, say not enough has been spent. Not enough has been taken from the makers. Not enough has gone to the right people. Not enough. Not FAIR enough.

At what point would you recommend a different tack?

BGFalcons82;1162557 wrote:Over $5,000,000,000,000 has been spent in 48 years since LBJ announced the "War On Poverty". Seeing as how the government can't create any wealth, that means they had to take it from others. If their cut is 33%, and I'm being very conservative here, then they have removed $7,500,000,000,000 out of the economy from taxpaying citizens to make sure no one lives in poverty. A $7.5 trillion wealth transfer and the statistics you quoted are nearly the same as they were 48 years ago. In other words, the War On Poverty is a proven abject failure, and yet you, and many millions of others, say not enough has been spent. Not enough has been taken from the makers. Not enough has gone to the right people. Not enough. Not FAIR enough.

At what point would you recommend a different tack?

could you itemize your 5 trillion number please.

isadore;1162589 wrote:could you itemize your 5 trillion number please.

I have the numbers right in front of me actually.

Democrat candidates....4.999 trillion
Democrat super PACS.....0.0005 trillion
Barack Obama........0.0004 trillion
The poor.........0.00005 trillion
Waste and fraud.....0.00005 trillion

If you study the the graphs you can see in the period from1965 to 1975 as welfare payments rose inreal value, poverty declined, but astheir real value declined, poverty decline first plateaued then rose.
We started a retreat from the War on Poverty along time ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_poverty_rate_timeline.gif

isadore;1162589 wrote:could you itemize your 5 trillion number please.

What's the matter...your Google button broken?

In inflation-adjusted numbers, it's over $16,000,000,000,000 per this 2010 article: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/229326/losing-war/robert-rector#

In 2009, it was just under $16,000,000,000,000 per Real Clear Politics: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/09/22/quite_a_poor_way_to_help_the_poor_98404.html

Listen, I'm not going to write a term paper for you. The fact of the matter is that after 48 years of wealth confiscation and re-distribution, the War On Poverty is a loser. The poverty statistics are virtually the same. The ethics and moral statistics are arguably worse, but that's another topic. So what return have we gained? What did we get for our "investment" (the statist's new catchword)? Since the War is lost, what should we do next? Take more from the makers and give it to the takers? Double-down on losing?

Tell us what we should do to eliminate poverty.

sleeper;1162593 wrote:I have the numbers right in front of me actually.

Democrat candidates....4.999 trillion
Democrat super PACS.....0.0005 trillion
Barack Obama........0.0004 trillion
The poor.........0.00005 trillion
Waste and fraud.....0.00005 trillion

that just doesn't add up. But I see your figures demonstrate almost no waste or fraud in the programs.