AmbergrisCaye.com Home Forums Talk Belize Chat Area Thanksgiving (?) 2024

Just a wild and crazy idea here, but have you considered raising up the impoverished, instead of trying to drag everyone else down to their level...... there are many variants of "equal"

BTW... re watch the Beck piece... you are re quoting Huffington, and miss quoting Beck... I'm somehow not shocked!!!

Yes, lets focus on raising up the impoverished, or better yet eliminate poverty all together (like Chile is attempting to do). I never said I wanted to drag more people into poverty. 1 in 5 children in the U.S. already living in poverty don't need anymore IMO.

Also here the transcript from the Beck thing, defiantly not a misquote by me:

You've been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You're going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.

They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them -- they're revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.

I note that the two main characters have the same names as the ones in George Orwell's 1984

I find the reference to poverty intriguing. Kinda comes out of nowhere given the content of Pug's post.

So, are you saying that by creating laws and regulations that create a Pug-like scenario we can erradicate poverty? Just trying to understand the connection you're trying to make.

If so, let's take a look at how government intervention in personal freedoms and wealth re-distribution have helped the improverished of America. By all accounts, the welfare state has done nothing but increase since the Depression. At no point since the 1940s has the combined welfare budget of the U.S. (states and the feds) decreased since then. Thus, one would expect to see some considerable relief, yes?



So, what's going on? The feds only have figures dating back to 1959. However, all indications are the the proverty rate had decreased dramatically from the end of the depression onward and progress was haulted by just one thing -- government. By shifting resources from growth creation to poverty programs, the government has hurt far more than it has helped.

The biggest turning point was the introduction of the Great Society and the War on Poverty. It is no coincidence whatsoever that as soon as those programs were in full swing by the 1970s, we see a flatlining of the poverty rate -- many historians say this is the first time in American history such a phenomenon has occurred for any 20-year cyle where one generation has not enjoyed less poverty than the one preceeding it.

When will progressives realize that this simply is a failed experiment in social policy.

Part II -- how the "Warfare State" of the Right is just as destructive as the Welfare of the Left.

Otter-
What was the population of the US in 1959? What is it today? Just trying to help you out here before you step into it!
What I see there is a "safety net"....obviously you don't see the same.

When you get a little time maybe you can detail some of that "government intervention in personal freedoms" for me. I'd really like to see that.

I agree with the part about wealth redistribution....but I think we differ about 180 degrees on from who, to who. Maybe you can show me in a comparison as to how much is given to the poor vs how much is given to the not so poor. Leave out Medicare and Social Security....those are benefits and not entitlements.

Isn't Chile one of the countries that is ahead of the cure in giving "ownership" of retirement funds (read Social Security accounts) to its citizenry?.. Less central government control will invariably lead to less poverty...It just doesn't translate into a 15 second soundbyte...."I have today allocated $20 billion bla bla bla"

Watch the clip...its a warning to Pelosi (the left) that if she keeps rousing the would be (or often already) Communist revolutionaries and then pulling back on what is being promised to them as payment for their support, then she(as a figurehead for the progressive agenda) will have to deal with these same revolutionaries when they bite the hand that refuses to feed them as promised!

Why is it so often that people who project themselves to be smart will refuse to see any message that does not gel with their political point of view?

Here was your first reference...


He was not advocating the execution of progressives, he was clearly warning of the potential consequences of agitating the committed zealots�

Thank you�I'll be here all week

I chose a graph that shows the number in poverty (39.8 million) because of Uncle Buck's reference to "40 million in poverty." However, I am most interested in the poverty "rate" which takes population chnage into account. This is the startling revelation -- the rate of poverty is worse now since the advent of a whole new class of entitlements never before seen in American history at the state and federal level.



With admitted fear of upsetting some libertarian brethern, I have no problem with the most basic of safety nets. We're wayyyy beyond that point. You say this is what you "see there." How does this graph represent the nature of the poverty depicted? Are you saying a 13% poverty rate is a natural bottom-out point that is comfortable and representative of acceptable welfare maintining people there? I don't understand.




Sift through several years of USA chat posts (and others) ranging from having to get a license to cut hair all the way to the TSA of today. There's citing the lemonade stand girl for tax evasion, and the recent multi-year jailing of the New Jersey man who dared to carry a locked and unloaded legally acquired firearm in his trunk while moving. Too many to mention and a topic for another post. It was only germane to mention here because of how it was represented in Pug's original post and seemingly twisted by Uncle Buck to be an indictment on ending the war on Poverty -- but again maybe I'm reading too much into it.



We may not differ much at all clover. I think the rise of corporatism is just as bad as the failed attempts to end poverty. The rise in income disparity has been studied quite a bit and most economists I've seen note the flatlining of the poverty rate coupled with fiscal and monetary policy that favors the rich and well connected (same thing really).

If 22.5% in 1959 represented 40,000,000 then the population would have been 177,700,000 +/-

13.2% of 39,800,000 put today's population at 301,500,000+/-

No snide comment, no digs...just interpreting the data for you

Come one man, where are there communist revolutionaries that Nancy Pelosi is working with directly, and that have called for a violent revolution? He is a fear monger, and most of his viewers will think he's talking about the progressives from that clip.

Here's what Chile is doing to eliminate poverty in a nutshell:The Pinera promised to increase average income per capita to more than $22,000 by the end of the decade from $14,000 now by improving education and labor laws, creating jobs and guaranteeing a minimum income for families.

Taking away peoples freedoms won't end poverty, but either will letting people do whatever they want. As a nation if we believe it's in our best interest to end poverty, there will have to be sacrifice. I wasn't saying that stories apocalyptic future of no personal freedoms is the way to end poverty, but that people are already living a nightmare far worse then what the story predicted right now, so lets work on that together!

Agreed. Let's work on that together. Let's get back to constitutional principles that prohibit government from subsidizing businesses, debasing the currency, and spending on social programs that have no positive effect yet still receive funding.

People are living a nightmare, yes. However, I need to hear how "letting people do whatever they want" has to do with anything. Tell me what this means. Give me an example of something people are permitted to do today that you feel should be prohibited. If I am misconstruing your point, I apologize.