A new movement afoot- The 53%ers!!

Says a man of means. This is why I call you clueless, you simply don't understand a thing about being truely poor. How could I possibly afford college when I can't even afford to fix my car, or even have it towed to a garage (or my home), or repair a cavity in a tooth? You don't understand how luck played a huge part in your success. You don't understand how your situation was unique to yourself and can't be applied to everyone else. You don't understand, and I doubt you ever will.

This isn't about making you feel guilt David, this is about an effort to enable you to understand why your opinions on poor people are wrong, since you can't help but express them here.

 

What are you doing right now? At this moment? Looking for a job or frittering away a Saturday afternoon? You seem to be relatively intelligent & you have access to a computer. Why not at least attempt to do something productive with that? A lot of "lucky" people have been able to make a living that way. And school? If you are truly poor there are a myriad of programs availble to assist you. You have to at least try.

Maybe luck played a part in my success but maybe, just maybe hard work & preserverance played a part. Maybe?
There's nothing you could ever say that would convince me my situation was in any way "unique"...I know too many people who have done the same thing I have. What is "unique" or "lucky" about working your butt off in school & getting a good job? The company I went to work for after college had a pretty tough selection process. Was I "lucky" or did I just work harder than my competition? Was making higher grades just luck? Was doing well in my internships "lucky"?

 

I could tell you of my specific health issues, but I'm not comfortable doing so, so I'm not going to. I doubt you'd accept anything less than near-death as an excuse for not succeeding as you have considering the 2nd quote above.

I'll put it this way:

Say everyone is sitting in a chair, the chair representing someone living in poverty and all the consequences of poverty. Throughout their lives everyone attempts to stand up and become successful, such as yourself. However, the vast majority of people are unable to stand, for various reasons; some are held down by others, some are too weak and can't find the strength, others are tied down. Despite those obstacles some still manage to stand, maybe they were faster than the people trying to hold them down, maybe they had more strength, maybe they managed to slip out of the ropes holding them dowm. Good for them, they have succeeded... but most simply can't succeed...

...they sit on their chairs and listen to you berate them for not being able to stand up... they listen as you belittle them and ridicule them... that's what makes you a *poof*

 

I forgot to mention that some are born standing up lol

 

Me thinks the reality is that the chair you are describing is just too comfy for you....you seem to be able to use the computer well enough...just sayin'

**Just a warning...you have people like what's his name justifying things for you but he has an agenda. See, the liberal far left elite (of which academia believes it belongs) needs people like you who they can manipulate (and buy) and count on as a solid voting bloc.

 

It's no surprise to me that you would come to that conclusion.

I'm aware of that and more.

 

Well, other than reveling in what's his names "no you can't" arguments you haven't said anything that would suggest otherwise.

 

To be more precise: I haven't said anything that will convince you. Now as to yourself...

IMHO, you are not worthy of the success you've had because of your lack of compassion towards the less fortunate. Yes, you give to charities and your wife gives free music lessons... and those are signs of compassion, but the utter hatred you have for anyone who is less successful than yourself outweighs the good you have done with that success.

You are mistaken if you believe Moen and I believe in the same things. I assure you he disagrees with many of my comments, and I disagree with many of his. One thing I could 'revel' in though is the thought of you being destitute and in misery, since I believe you have forgotten what it is like to be poor ...or more likely it's that you never actually have been poor and lie to yourself and others that you were once poor and had no trouble becoming rich, "so why can't everyone else?" You probably had a middle-class upbringing and thought of yourself as poor, something I see a lot of in middle-class people. Now you are a rich man and see your taxes being larger than the poor and middle-class... so you whine like a stuck pig that it's unfair. You don't have a *poof*ing clue.

 

I'll say it again, I have compassion for those who by no fault of their own have fallen on hard times. I do not feel sorry for the lazy, excuse-makers who refuse to pull their own weight.

...and remember, through all this back & forth, I have tried to convince you you can achieve....

 

Then I'll say this again: I agree there are lazy people who take advantage of the system. Does that mean we should cut funding for entitlements and cause even more hardship and suffering to the majority of people who are not lazy, but are unable to support themselves?

 

Who here has ever advocated that position? You are so swayed by the far left media they have you arguing a point that isn't even at issue.

 

I look at both sides of an argument and form my own opinion. There are almost always elements from both sides that I could agree on, but IMO the far-right media is far more willing to stretch the truth to persuade people. I can't trust them to be honest, and I don't like them influencing the weak-minded with half-truths and misrepresentations.

If we agree on entitlements, that some are abusing the system but funding should continue, what measures would you like to see taken to prevent the lazy from abusing the system? My suggestion was to put a cap on benefits for unemployment according to wages earned. I believe my last proposal was at $25,000 (for a single person), up from my initial proposal of $16,500. Included was a suggestion that an area's cost of living be taken into account for the cap limit.

Unemployment is so far the only entitlement program with any amount of serious discussion here, small as it has been, but if you have an idea on other programs bring them into the conversation and I'll listen to them.

 

Personally, I think we should take all the money that the government gives to people...unemployment, medicaid, food stamps, school lunches, WIC, energy assistance, SSI, housing assistance, disability, children's benefits, earned income tax credits, child tax credits, educational grants, even social security & medicare, etc, etc, etc. Cancel it all and take that money and fund a Department of the Entitlement (or Dept of Helping or whatever you want to call it).

There are so many programs and agencies and bureaucracy involved that there is no way we can know if we are helping people who need it and there is no way that people who need help can navigate all the different agencies and programs that might actually help them. It is a total shotgun approach and we can do better in this day and age.

 

I heard a suggestion (can't recall where I heard it, maybe the radio) that was a bit similar. The speaker suggested we break everyone's benefit out as a per diem, paid weekly. The bureaucrats would assess each situation much more frequently, offer regular counselling, do the drug testing etc. The various handouts would be centralized & could be more closely monitored to avoid double-dipping & other abuses.

 

(In response to Stu's comments)

I'm not certain I agree with much of that. Even if all the programs were administered by a single agency, the agency would have departments within it that specialized on a particular benefit... since they are so different... and would serve essentially the same functions as they do now. On the plus side that agency would probably be somewhat more efficient, especially in accountability. Interesting idea.

I know the elderly are feeling a lot of anxiety over all the procedures, all the forms they have to fill out, in order to receive a specific benefit. The idea of everything being under one agency has an appeal there. Coordination of appropriate benefits and services for them would almost certainly improve under one agency.

 

I have worked for Uncle Sam for 23 years now in the DOD and Civilian side and I can tell you that it would eliminate a lot of bureaucracy and paperwork and confusion for people who need help. It is hard to even explain unless you have worked for the government how it operates and expands and spends and has rivalries and competitions with other agencies. But you would be shocked if you really knew. The more consolidated a system is in the government and the more people who work for the same agency, the better it is. There would be better cooperation, better management of resources, centralized assistance and on and on.

 

I think it all boils down to this: I don't believe anyone here is advocating eliminating assistance for the poor, the disabled, children, etc. I believe everyone would advocate making certain that the money goes to those truly in need and that abuse is eliminated.

 

Well, lets clarify a few points. Just because someone has money to pay for a home, a car, and charities does not mean that he doesn't pay his taxes. He probably does. You are concerned that he is not paying as high as he should. Second, the tax system as constituted is not meant merely to raise capital but to promote behaviors among individuals and corporations through tax credits and breaks. So GE doesn't pay taxes because they take advantage of tax credits and deductions created by liberal and conservative memes. Its not all lobbying. If you want to talk about reforming the tax code, you don't start with the rates but with the tax deductions and credits. The deductions and credits make the rates pretty much pointless. GE probably had an astronomically high tax rate...but it was the other rules that allowed them cut down on their bill. Finally, let us not become obsessed with the sentimentality of the American past. Yes, with higher tax rates the American economy did not suffer in the 50s and 60s. But for a good portion of that time the US was also the only country that was not a bombed out shell of itself and was the focus of the free world. That is no longer the case. Yes Europe does have higher tax rates, but they are also going through a sizable crisis themselves. Yes, Reagan boosted the economy by cutting taxes, but there is no way the US can dig out of its debt by taxes alone.

Its not about taxing higher or lower. Its about taxing smarter. By focusing on the numbers, instead of the collection aspects, we are kind of losing sight of the ball.

 

Good point! A flatter tax would take the special interest rewards (and penalties) out of play.

 

Don't get me wrong. I work with a lot of poorer individuals as a pro bono attorney. I help a lot of them with tax problems. I believe in a system of varying tax rates based on income. But we can do without a lot of the deductions and credits.