Mission Accomplished: The War on Poverty is Over

[HunterSdVa29]

Did any of this^^ disprove anything in my post? You've gone from "The military doesn't give free shit" to "why doesn't everyone just join for free shit" to "well not everyone else is cut out to get this free shit".

You still haven't gotten around the fact that the free shit is the issue. You're flailing.

i wasn't serious w/ the 'everyone could join' it was clearly highlighting the absurd claim that the military is welfare

if anything 'job training program' is a closer summation, but if it was welfare we'd dominate Safety Net spending.....

it's not free shit. you have to serve to get it, not sure if serious or how you can type that w/ a straight face especially w/ a dad that served. Astonishing really

 

[xcvbn]

Until corporate welfare is acknowledged and reigned in I'll never support legislation that cuts social welfare.

The people who do support cuts don't actually care about government expenditures, they're just looking for an axe to grind and choose their fellow citizens who are lowest on the totem pole. No different from bullies in grade school who acted tough because inside they were extremely weak.

If you want to show off how tough you are, go after the big dogs who get government handouts to match their $500k+ salary.

 

[Falsedawn]

i wasn't serious w/ the 'everyone could join' it was clearly highlighting the absurd claim that the military is welfare

if anything 'job training program' is a closer summation, but if it was welfare we'd dominate Safety Net spending.....

it's not free shit. you have to serve to get it, not sure if serious or how you can type that w/ a straight face especially w/ a dad that served. Astonishing really

Ah, now you "weren't serious". Damn Poe's Law striking again!

<puh-lease75>

(I just averted Poe's Law btw)

Why is my father's service status required to be considered when stating an objective fact? You don't generate enough value as a person to justify the benefits you get. I'd tell him the same thing, as any good capitalist with a brain would. Inputs vs outputs, he took accounting, he wouldn't take it personally.

That there exists an overinflated sense of self worth on the subject doesn't preclude me from calling a spade a spade. The elderly don't deserve welfare, you don't deserve the entitlements that the military gives you. What's the issue beyond the fact that you think you're different than them?

 

[gatchaman]

Do prisoners live in poverty?
Should prisoners be required to work?

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Ah, now you "weren't serious". Damn Poe's Law striking again!

<puh-lease75>

(I just averted Poe's Law btw)

Why is my father's service status required to be considered when stating an objective fact? You don't generate enough value as a person to justify the benefits you get. I'd tell him the same thing, as any good capitalist with a brain would. Inputs vs outputs, he took accounting, he wouldn't take it personally.

That there exists an overinflated sense of self worth on the subject doesn't preclude me from calling a spade a spade. The elderly don't deserve welfare, you don't deserve the entitlements that the military gives you. What's the issue beyond the fact that you think you're different than them?

The poor dont add to American Exceptionalism, the military is the main means for that, hence benefits veterans get for their sacrifice serving....

What you feel someone is entitled to is 100% irrelevant

 

[Falsedawn]

Explaining you mean? Sure.

No. No one is going to say, "hey I feel like being on government assistance today". However, the decisions you make in life are the direct lead to that same government assistance. Every choice has a consequence. If you chose to not excel or advance your education, you are choosing a more difficult path to success. If you chose to have 3 kids at a young age, you are choosing a more difficult path. Etc. The more that bad choices compound, the higher likelihood that you end up needing government assistance. So when the end result has turned into "23 year old Jane with 3 kids and a high school education needs government assistance", that was a conscious choice on Jane's behalf. Jane chose a life of government assistance by choosing terrible decisions in her life. I would say there are significantly more people in Jane's case on government assistance than there are "single father of one due to wife's sudden death, highly educated Joe had a string of bad luck forcing him into a shelter".

Unless you are arguing that most people on welfare are highly educated money saving excellent decision making for years humanitarians, I am unsure what you disagree with.

You don't see anything wrong with portraying all welfare recipients as either "makers of bad decisions, masters of their own fate" or "highly educated money saving excellent decision making for years humanitarians"? Damn son, you ever had something bad happen to you? Car broke down? Got sick? Family member died? That all or nothing mentality is really juvenile, kinda makes me think you live your life on rails like a light gun shooter. Everything is locked in, no random chance involved.

<puh-lease75>

You didn't directly answer my question either, but I gleaned enough from your post to infer. Next time, you can just say you're relying on your gut, it would take a lot less words.

 

[Falsedawn]

The poor dont add to American Exceptionalism, the military is the main means for that, hence benefits veterans get for their sacrifice serving....

What you feel someone is entitled to is 100% irrelevant

There's that overinflated sense of self worth again. Jesus, man.

You're not any better than they are. The sooner you come to that realization, the sooner you can resolve this cognitive dissonance.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

There's that overinflated sense of self worth again. Jesus, man.

You're not any better than they are. The sooner you come to that realization, the sooner you can resolve this cognitive dissonance.

Whatever you say my dude

 

[bobgeese]

You want shit, work for it.


Pretty simple.

 

[Falsedawn]

That's twice I said I was referring to as a whole, on average, the majority of people, whatever you wanna call it but you keep saying I am referring to "all". I even used the words "law of averages" in regards to people as a whole in one post that you quoted. You are purposely missing my point at this stage for reasons I do not know.

Your "choices" are literally the decisions you make in life, that leads you to the current state. It seems that you are arguing that more educated and responsible people make less income and take more government assistance? Or that your choices in life don't effect you income and status later in life? However-

https://smartasset.com/retirement/the-average-salary-by-education-level

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...lege-grads-and-everyone-else-record/96493348/

https://www.the74million.org/childr...s-spend-nearly-twice-as-much-time-on-screens/

https://www.collegeboard.org/releas...ealthier-behaviors-and-more-civic-involvement


That's what you wanted no? So now that we have established that more educated and more responsible people do better in life, my clear stance since my first post discussing this topic, what is your position? You seem to disagree with this conclusion. Are you arguing that people less qualified and less educated are on less government assistance as a whole? If that is what you are saying then explain, or prove it, or both. I'm listening to a counter argument.

Ok, you didn't say "all" you said "a majority".

Yet again, you keep referring to whatever aggregate you want to use as being directly beholden to their choices, then keep referring to education levels and other extraneous shit to support your position.

I want to know how you know that *aggregate* of people on welfare are the direct result of their choices. What statistical analysis are you using to come to that conclusion?

I don't give a shit about education levels, kids on screens, or charity work. How did you come to the conclusion that you made regarding *aggregate* people on welfare being the direct result of their choices? Why else would I bring random chance into it?

 

[2arctanx]

Can't or won't?

i assume can't?

 

[spamking]

There is something frighteningly pathological about anyone whose primary anger and contempt, socially speaking, is directed at those in a lower life station.

But welcome to the republican hive mind.

I guess you've completely missed my posts in here . . . no hive mind for this registered Republican . . .

 

[spamking]

None of that has anything to do with poverty.

I'm all about smart financial choices. But every time someone tries to turn a conversation about poverty rates into a conversation about the spending habits of the poor, they're demonstrating a complete misunderstanding of the subject matter. We determine poverty based on a government set income level.

Someone can make $100k/yr and blow it on drugs, saving $0, and they would not be part of the poverty population. Someone could make $15k/yr and save every penny and they would still be part of the poverty population.

Disregarding that this is an income conversation to turn it into some kind of referendum on the moral failings of the poor is why this issue never gets addressed properly. Poverty is not an outcome of poor moral character, people need to stop trying to equate the two.

I will say though . . . that in some cases folks can be at or under the poverty level based on income and still live a decent life if they live within their means . . . I think that's what @HunterSdVa29 might be getting at.

 

[spamking]

all the elderly people work full time?

all the single moms, despite the fact they can also go to school for extended periods and receive full benefits?

are you sure?

Many of those elderly folks have paid into social security and are definitely deserving of getting their benefits after retirement without needing to work full time or at all . . .

 

[spamking]

Except parks have paid employees who keep them clean.

Not in all cities . . . at least not the extent they might need. That's why criminals often get community service to clean up . . . parks.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Not in all cities . . . at least not the extent they might need. That's why criminals often get community service to clean up . . . parks.

Okay so you figure a cheap way to bus people all over the country for these jobs.

 

[HunterSdVa29]

Many of those elderly folks have paid into social security and are definitely deserving of getting their benefits after retirement without needing to work full time or at all . . .

many yes, not as many women worked in the workforce back then though so I was just pointing out it was misleading to imply they ALL do

they also, generally, worked jobs w/ better unions and more pensions (certainly for private sector jobs) yet still rely on SS and MED......i'm trying to imagine given the current state of SS reserves, the lack of pensions outside the public sector, and the current state of the average savings account in the US and it's uh not looking good for those that didn't plan properly for the future elderly.

Same can be said for service industry employees and looming automation, either we drastically fix our social welfare system as much more people are going to be on it....or we Modest Proposal type cut them off and completely change the way our society views the needy.....Obviously option 1 is the more prudent option, but it's coming

 

[spamking]

Okay so you figure a cheap way to bus people all over the country for these jobs.

Why would anyone need to be bused outside of their community?

 

[Mr. Shickadance]

^If you take away food stamps and welfare, what do you think those people will do?

Get longer boot straps making it easier for the elderly and the disabled to reach down and grab them.

 

[Revolver]

Poor people should be forced to move to a 3rd world country like Canada.