Herbert Hoover
This sort of spin, I think, represents one of the major differences between conservatism and liberalism I’ve been pondering a lot lately. Conservatives sort of look at the world as it is, with inequities, inefficiencies and disparities and say "well, tough". To them, if you’re poor – oh, well and nothing can be done about it, certainly not anything that could even remotely affect the ability of the rich to take in as much money as possible no matter what. Cons so want to ignore any of these problems they seek, as in that blog entry, to just define away the issue. They would rather go into a harangue about why there is no spoon than argue in favor of anything to fix the situation.
Franklin Roosevelt
Progressives on the other hand, see problems and think about how we should fix them. That doesn’t say we’ve got all the answers or that all the solutions will work – but it’s more than just throwing your hands up in the air and saying "shit happens".
UPDATE: Bruce says that I’m mischaracterizing his post. But the express intent of his post is to minimalize poverty in America because comparatively our poor have it head and shoulders above the rest of the world. As someone with familial roots in one of those poor countries, that’s clear to me. But that does not automatically lead to the conclusion that we shouldn’t work to fix the issue. Poor people in America have it better off than poor people in the rest of the world. Guess what, so do the rich people. Doesn’t change the fact that we also ought to be able to use those resources and knowledge and willpower to help people up.
Conservatives don’t want to do anything about this issue than cut taxes for the top and pat people on the head and have them hope for trickle down. Progressives want to actually address the issue. That’s a world of difference.
Oliver, you are building a straw man. Seriously. Conservative belief is that there should be social equity but not necessarily social equality. That is to say, if you want to get rich (or follow your bliss) and you have the ability, you should not be fettered in your ability to do so. That was the fundamental Reagan optimism that people talk about.
The problem with America today is that there is not any social equity. Some of the issues I could point to include the high cost of college, the poor quality of public education, healthcare etc. In short, Reagan’s optimism has been replaced with a new kind of aristocratic sensibility. If you really want to understand the conservative movement and to handle them on their own terms, this is an important distinction for you to understand.
There will always be a bottom 1%, unless you’re advocating the abolition of mathematics.
The question is why our definition of poverty is so broad so as to include folks who would be considered upper-middle class in any other country.
Funny that the author of the story puts forth a number of statistics as “taken from a variety of government reports” but then never names those reports or where to find them. Beware of conservatives who come bearing “facts.”
This smells of more ‘welfare queen’ bullshit to me. Let’s not forget that Reagan’s “optimism” depended a great deal on demonizing the poor as lazy losers content to live large on the governments dime. It was all bullshit but it worked to polarize the electorate, a classic conservative electoral tactic.
So here we have yet again, a conservative putting out a list of unsourced “statistics” designed to trigger a negative emotional response: “Screw those poor people with color TVs. I’m not paying for their Tivo!”
frame, how else do you explain the massive drop in unemployment right after Clinton signed the welfare reform act?
Oliver, spot on dude.
The conservatives want to keep the (false) hope alive that you too can make it, so don’t piss in the stew.
The truth is that the righteous way to live is by following Jesus and sharing what you have with your neighbors in need.
If your kindness is coming from a 3,000 sf mansion and your driving a Hummer with a fish symbol on it, your not living a righteous life.
That’s the problem with American Christianity today. We have compromised our two greatest gifts for capitalism.
The religious by lying about Jesus and money. And democracy by money equating freedom of speech.
Greed is never good. Just another lie from the devil.
let’s start with you, Save, how do you explain it?
If your kindness is coming from a 3,000 sf mansion and your driving a Hummer with a fish symbol on it, your not living a righteous life.
That’s nonsense. What if the guy driving the Hummer and has the big house is still giving a good deal of his money away to charities and the poor? You cannot grasp a person’s righteousness by where they live and what they drive.
Of course Oliver’s take on the issue is far off the mark as usual. He also gets to the heart of the matter (and the problem with liberalism in general when dealing with these issues) when he writes:
Progressives on the other hand, see problems and think about how we should fix them. That doesn’t say we’ve got all the answers or that all the solutions will work – but it’s more than just throwing your hands up in the air and saying “shit happens”.
IE: “As long as we can tell people that we care, that’s a good thing.” Of course, people want results, not platitudes. And guess what? Not every problem can be fixed.
Oliver also sees every solution wrapped around the Robin Hood theory. He writes:
To them, if you’re poor – oh, well and nothing can be done about it, certainly not anything that could even remotely affect the ability of the rich to take in as much money as possible no matter what.
In other words, part of the solution means figuring out a way we can get more money from “the rich” and redistribute it to “the poor.” It would be wonder if somebody like Oliver could come up with some kind of idea that would aim not to just redistribute wealth, but rather to make it more accessible for people to earn their own wealth.
But beyond that, Oliver and others completely miss the point of the article and as such are reduced to using typical stereotypes.
Farris is right when he talks about the poor in the United States and how being ‘poor’ here is nowhere near the same as being poor in other countries. Members of our church just returned from a missions trip to Cambodia where people live in little shacks that have no plumbing or electricity. They were thrilled to get old clothes that people donated.
The article deals with the perception of the poor and how it is defined. I worked with a single mother that lived in working class area of Brooklyn. Her salary and such would define her as the “working poor” that Oliver believes needs to be “fixed”, but I also remember that she wore Versace jeans, designer shoes, and drove a nice Toyota Camry.
By such definition, my in-laws would be considered ‘poor’ since their income is limited to SS and his pension. Meanwhile, they live in a 2000 sq foot home, with a two car garage and a big swimming pool.
The point being, while there are people that fit the technical definition of poor, there isn’t this need for a massive government program like John Edwards is advocating to ‘fix’ the problem.
“They were thrilled to get old clothes that people donated.”
Wow. Maybe you should guys should send them cake, too. What a fucking patronizing attitude. People were glad for our hand me down t-shirts, not like our ungrateful poor here with their color tvs and microwaves!
Let’s just ignore the fact that the article lists a bunch of unsourced, unverifiable statistics and keep spewing more and more anecdotes about how the poor are living large off the rich!
Woo hoo, way to go guys.
. What a fucking patronizing attitude. People were glad for our hand me down t-shirts, not like our ungrateful poor here with their color tvs and microwaves!
It was not meant as a comparison in attitudes putz but rather to show that one person’s definition of ‘poor’ is certainly not another’s.
And for those who were there and will often complain about what they don’t have, it was an eye opening experience. But you wouldn’t know anything about that, would you? Because you like most people and your ilk, talk out of your ass about how much you care but do nothing more than talk.
How much did you donate to charity last year Frame?
let’s start with you, Save, how do you explain it?
Don’t answer a question with a question. He asked you. If you don’t want to answer, then just say so.
Ladies and Gentlemen, it’s time again for Straw Man and Made Up Arguments with Jay Caruso!
IE: “As long as we can tell people that we care, that’s a good thing.” Of course, people want results, not platitudes. And guess what? Not every problem can be fixed.
Problem can’t be fixed, so we just shouldn’t try right?
“President Kennedy, it’s simply possible for us to go to the moon.”
“Ok, never mind then.”
In other words, part of the solution means figuring out a way we can get more money from “the rich” and redistribute it to “the poor.” It would be wonder if somebody like Oliver could come up with some kind of idea that would aim not to just redistribute wealth, but rather to make it more accessible for people to earn their own wealth.
Except I never said that. You just made it up. I believe in giving people the tools to create their wealth. Simply dumping money on people doesn’t work, and I never advocated anything like that. What I don’t believe in is policies focused on simply giving the top guys a break and telling the rest of us to go screw off.
Members of our church just returned from a missions trip to Cambodia where people live in little shacks that have no plumbing or electricity. They were thrilled to get old clothes that people donated.
Ergo, we should just not bother to help the poor and middle class in America, right? We should just sit on our hands. Sheesh.
How much did you donate to charity last year Frame?
This, again? You give money to charity, super. You also support political policies and movements that screw over the people supported by those charities. Feel better?
Hilarious, Jay. I do my bit for charity including volunteer work.
What I don’t do is walk around suggesting that the poor in this country should just shut the fuck up about being poor because we all know that they have color tvs and camrys, unlike the poor in third world countries, the very countries that US manufacturers turn to for cheap labor to keep their profit margins high.
By your fucking logic someone making 25 cents a day in Cambodia has nothing to complain about when compared to some poor fuck in Africa in a refuge camp making nothing. It’s a wonderful logic that allows us to continually lower our acceptable level of misery because, hey, there’s always someone worse off than you.
For some reason we never out that logic at work in the opposite direction, constantly lowering the bar for what we consider obscene amounts of wealth. Nope.
As for save’s question, expecting me to answer it is a little like expecting me to answer the question, ‘How do you explain the drop in terrorist attacks since i stopped wearing blue shirts?’
If save wants to make an argument that people on welfare in the 1990s were lazy fucks who all got jobs once they were forced to, let’s see the numbers and let’s see the reasoning. Just throwing out a question already loaded with unsupported assumptions is just typical right wing bullshit. As expected, you lapped it right up … awesome ..
Problem can’t be fixed, so we just shouldn’t try right?
If you have a flat tire with a hole in the side of the tire Oliver, it cannot be fixed. You could try and plug it, but that would only be temporary. Not a lasting solution. You have to scrap the whole tire and get a new one. You cannot solve the issue of poverty by doing the same crap we’ve been doing over and over and over for the last 40-50 years and claim it’s ‘new’ because it has a different name.
Except I never said that. You just made it up. I believe in giving people the tools to create their wealth. Simply dumping money on people doesn’t work, and I never advocated anything like that. What I don’t believe in is policies focused on simply giving the top guys a break and telling the rest of us to go screw off.
You specifically said, “nothing can be done about it, certainly not anything that could even remotely affect the ability of the rich to take in as much money as possible no matter what.”
To me, that reads you’re accusing conservatives not wanting to grab some more bucks from the rich to help the poor. Maybe you need to clarify.
Ergo, we should just not bother to help the poor and middle class in America, right? We should just sit on our hands. Sheesh.
No, but it goes to show the difference in degrees of poverty. We think ‘poor’ and we think we’re talking about people who are barely making enough to eat. Yes, many of those people exist, guys like Edwards are attempting to make it seem as though everybody that qualifies as ‘poor’ under the census is close to starvation and needs massive government assistance.
This, again?
Yeah, that again. Talk is cheap Oliver. Supporting in your, the ‘right’ candidate is a bullshit way of backing up that talk and I get tired of being lectured to by people who think as long as they vote the right way, that they’re doing their part to help people. It’s kind of like wearing an AIDS ribbon. Wear the ribbon and shows people you care. It doesn’t mean you’re doing shit about it, but you care.
That’s lame and its hypocritical.
Hilarious, Jay. I do my bit for charity including volunteer work.
Wonderful. What is it?
What I don’t do is walk around suggesting that the poor in this country should just shut the fuck up about being poor because we all know that they have color tvs and camrys, unlike the poor in third world countries, the very countries that US manufacturers turn to for cheap labor to keep their profit margins high.
Actually, nobody said any such thing. Another one of your bullshit antics. Next.
By your fucking logic someone making 25 cents a day in Cambodia has nothing to complain about when compared to some poor fuck in Africa in a refuge camp making nothing. It’s a wonderful logic that allows us to continually lower our acceptable level of misery because, hey, there’s always someone worse off than you.
Wasn’t my logic dumbass because (again), it’s not something I said.
Next.
Just throwing out a question already loaded with unsupported assumptions is just typical right wing bullshit. As expected, you lapped it right up … awesome ..
Actually, all I did was point out your logical fallacy of answering a question with a question. It’s not my fault you’re a moron.
Now I know why I’ve been content to just ignore your stupid ass. I think I’ll take that up again.
it is not merely that we “have poor people” – it is that the rich get that way by stealing from the poor.
there is only one reason people ever dispute this: fear of what the poor will do when they see this clearly, and choose to act upon it.
this is not something i expect anyone here to agree with, but i thought someone should say it out loud at least once. thanks.
Jay it is so simple even a Republican can understand it.
Jesus, (you remember Jesus right?), said, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”.
So if you were poor you would be happy to eat the leftovers of the rich?
If you see your neighbor in need and do nothing your a hypocrite to call yourself a Christian.
Who is your neighbor Jay?
Throw out thirty pieces of silver as you crucify the Christ again.
Your giving out out your wealth is pathetic and wrong because you will always take care of yourself first last and always.
“The pride of the dying rich raises the loudest laugh in hell.” John Foster.
it is that the rich get that way by stealing from the poor.
I’d love to learn how it is that poor people have so much money that the rich could steal from them?
That kind of talk reminds me of ‘The Honeymooners’ where Ralph finds a suitcase full of money on his bus and says, “It must have been some rich person who left it there” and Norton responds, “Yeah. I’d hate to think it was some poor person who really needs it.”
Wow. More wondrous stuff from Jay.
I guess your anecdote about the “technically” poor mother who drives a camry and wears versace was not intended to undermine any moral claim she might have to being poor in America. Why compared to other countries, she’s living high on the hog. She has no right to expect any kind of assistance for the government or elsewhere for that matter.
And Jay, your whole fucking post was about how poverty is relative and that there’s no need to any kind of government response to poverty in this country because the “technically” poor here have it so much better than the “technically” poor in Cambodia.
So please, let’s not start with the I never said that shit.
Then again, it’s what i expect from you. Same with your response to Save’s question. Rather than confront the complete illogic and groundless assumptions of save’s question, you attack me for failing to answer to it. God forbid you should actually turn these keen powers of logic and reason on a conservative. What an idiot.
If you have a flat tire with a hole in the side of the tire Oliver, it cannot be fixed. You could try and plug it, but that would only be temporary. Not a lasting solution. You have to scrap the whole tire and get a new one.
That’s fine, but the conservative proposition is that we should keep driving the car on the three wheels and give up on the fourth.
To me, that reads you’re accusing conservatives not wanting to grab some more bucks from the rich to help the poor. Maybe you need to clarify.
Well you read it wrong. Maybe you need to comprehend better.
It doesn’t mean you’re doing shit about it, but you care.
No, Jay, its an excuse by people like yourself to absolve themself. You think that you write a check for charity then go to the polls and vote Republican and that makes everything ok. Some of us think that we can do charity things in private without bragging about it like swinging dicks and simultaneously support political policies that won’t negate charitable contributions. You don’t.
I guess your anecdote about the “technically” poor mother who drives a camry and wears versace was not intended to undermine any moral claim she might have to being poor in America.
BUZZZ! Wrong. Again. As usual.
Why compared to other countries, she’s living high on the hog. She has no right to expect any kind of assistance for the government or elsewhere for that matter.
Wrong and wrong.
And Jay, your whole fucking post was about how poverty is relative and that there’s no need to any kind of government response to poverty in this country
Wrong.
So please, let’s not start with the I never said that shit.
It’s not shit moron. This is a tried and true tactic of yours Frame. You take what somebody writes, APPLY YOUR OWN MOTIVES to what was written and say, “This is what you meant.”
It’s crap. Your full of crap and I won’t play into it.
Same with your response to Save’s question. Rather than confront the complete illogic and groundless assumptions of save’s question, you attack me for failing to answer to it.
See what I mean? “You attack me for failing to answer it.” No you big baby, I didn’t attack you. Here is what I said:
Don’t answer a question with a question. He asked you. If you don’t want to answer, then just say so.
In no way, did I “attack” you, so unbunch your panties. If you felt that Save’s question was illogical and based on groundless assumptions, then just fucking say so! But no, you wanted to set things up. Why? So you could do what you always do.
So kindly GFY.
Jay your a pathetic excuse for a Christian.
No, Jay, its an excuse by people like yourself to absolve themself. You think that you write a check for charity then go to the polls and vote Republican and that makes everything ok.
Sorry Oliver, it’s the opposite. Liberals tend to think their votes absolve them. As long as you’re voting the right way, there’s never a need to get your own hands dirty or to break out the checkbook and go beyond what else is being done. I’ve seen it far too often.
And yet you’re the one who brings up the issue to swing it.
Jay your a pathetic excuse for a Christian.
Mike, your opinion of me means absolutely nothing, thank you.
And yet you’re the one who brings up the issue to swing it.
You lay down the gauntlet when you claim conservatives don’t care about the poor and liberals do. You equate caring with who you vote for.
Take this bible with your hand me down shirt, and by the way, would you like a job you poor Guatemalans? $2 a week. Good pay. Now excuse me, I have to go home and fire my neighbors and count my money.
“BUZZZ! Wrong. Again. As usual.”
Would you care to explain why i’m wrong? You say you won’t play into my “game” but you refuse to further explain yourself as well.
In your post you clearly assert that there is no need for the government to address the issue of poverty this country in any serious or concerted way because most of the poor in this country are not as bad off as in other countries. This is a pretty fucked up way of approaching poverty not to mention government policies in general. By that score, I wonder if i could get conservatives to cut the defense budget because we spend so much more on the military relative to other countries. I’m thinking not.
I’ll also just back up to point out that you are basing your do nothing attitude to poverty on a string of unsourced, unverifiable statistics and some rather patronizing anecdotes.
Finally, Jay, you accuse of me wanting to “set” save up while completely ignoring the loaded nature of his initial question. Instead of asking save to try a less loaded question, a “set up” in itself, you went after me for not answering it. Again, yet another example of your complete dishonesty.
I’m not a statistician so maybe someone can sort this out better than i can. But according the US census a five member family (two children, their mother, father, and great-aunt) that has a combined income of $25,000 is not considered in poverty because their income exceeds the established “the poverty threshold”.
Could someone please tell me how a family of five can get by on $25k a year and still not be considered poor?
I wonder how much money they have left over every month to blow on Versace jeans? The poor bastards don’t know how good they have it!
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html
What’s with all the out-of-context Jesus talk? As I read the sacred texts, Jesus NEVER called for government intervention in social programs.
The virtue in helping the poor was that it wasn’t required, yet people did it anyway, out of the goodness of their souls. Force people to “love your neighbor” via goverment edict under threat of punishment, and the virtue is stripped away.
Could someone please tell me how a family of five can get by on $25k a year and still not be considered poor?
Poor, sure. But poverty stricken so dire as to require immediate government intervention? Hardly. When I was growing up, I WISHED our household income would have been 25K.
Would you care to explain why i’m wrong? You say you won’t play into my “game” but you refuse to further explain yourself as well.
I don’t have to explain myself further. My points were very clear and anybody that just reads it will see what I was saying.
In your post you clearly assert that there is no need for the government to address the issue of poverty this country in any serious or concerted way because most of the poor in this country are not as bad off as in other countries.
No, I did not assert that. If I clearly asserted that, I would have written, “there is no need for the government to address the issue of poverty this country in any serious or concerted way because most of the poor in this country are not as bad off as in other countries.” I didn’t even come CLOSE to asserting that. And that’s my problem with discussing any issue with you. You consistently claim, “This is what you said” when it’s not even close. You do it ALL THE TIME.
Instead of asking save to try a less loaded question, a “set up” in itself, you went after me for not answering it.
I didn’t “go after you for not answering it.” I said that answering a question with a question is not an acceptable response and that if you didn’t want to answer it you should have said so. That’s all. If you felt it was a loaded question, why not just say so? Why jerk around?
Could someone please tell me how a family of five can get by on $25k a year and still not be considered poor?
The census does not take into account that such a family, while not being considered in poverty, still benefits from government assistance in the form of the earned income credit, WIC, school lunches, section 8, Medicaid, etc.
You equate caring with who you vote for.
Yep.
Force people to “love your neighbor” via goverment edict under threat of punishment, and the virtue is stripped away.
This is just bullshit. There’s no zero sum. There are private, charitable ways to alleviate poverty but to think that the government – the representatives of the people – should sit idly by as people need help is the central belief of conservatism and against the values of America.
Yep.
Great. At least you admit it. Now the next time some charitable organization asks for help you can tell them, “I did help. I voted for John Kerry. Merry Christmas!”
There are private, charitable ways to alleviate poverty but to think that the government – the representatives of the people – should sit idly by as people need help is the central belief of conservatism and against the values of America.
There you go Oliver with your bogus assertions. Please show me anywhere a prominent conservative elected official has said that the government should not address poverty in any way. We won’t have to wait long because you won’t find it.
The problem is, you like most liberals think that as long as their is a shiny new government program that is always one size fits all, it doesn’t matter how much it costs, it doesn’t matter how much it overlaps with already existing programs, it doesn’t matter how much waste, fraud and mismanagement is part of it. As long as it EXISTS, then it must be good.
THAT’S where conservatives differ. The same thing can be accomplished without pissing billions of taxpayer dollars down the drain. It’s called thinking outside the box, and its something the current crop of liberals running Congress cannot do.
The question is why our definition of poverty is so broad so as to include folks who would be considered upper-middle class in any other country.
Because they don’t live in another country.
Now the next time some charitable organization asks for help you can tell them, “I did help. I voted for John Kerry. Merry Christmas!”
The thing is Jay, you think that supporting George Bush & Co jibes with doing charity work. Your support of Bush effectively negates your charity work because cons are making life harder for people. I, on the other hand, and many progressives, in addition to personal charity are also consistent enough to support pols that seek to lift people out of poverty. The two are complementary, not contradictory like your position.
Please show me anywhere a prominent conservative elected official has said that the government should not address poverty in any way.
They’ll never come out and say it, they’ll just veto programs providing health care for kids and chalk it up to “waste” and “pork”.
The problem is, you like most liberals think that as long as their is a shiny new government program that is always one size fits all, it doesn’t matter how much it costs, it doesn’t matter how much it overlaps with already existing programs, it doesn’t matter how much waste, fraud and mismanagement is part of it. As long as it EXISTS, then it must be good.
How does that straw taste? You on the right would prefer we do nothing. The left would rather to try things to fix the issue. I don’t pretend that every solution will work, I think a lot of them in the past have sucked. But the idea here is that you try instead of just saying, “oh well”.
Moderately wealthy to wealthy conservatives think they’ve got theirs and screw any thing remotely governmental to push folks below them into having the tools required to move up. “I’ve got mine so eff off” is the operating philosophy behind much of conservatism and why many of us find it so rotten.
Jay, then could you please translate this for the rest of us:
“The point being, while there are people that fit the technical definition of poor, there isn’t this need for a massive government program like John Edwards is advocating to ‘fix’ the problem.”
“The census does not take into account that such a family, while not being considered in poverty, still benefits from government assistance in the form of the earned income credit, WIC, school lunches, section 8, Medicaid, etc.”
ah yes, and once we factor in this windfall, that’s how this family of five can afford a Lexus on $25k. Now i get it. Geez, it’s a wonder anyone complains about poverty at all.
Of course, how many of those government programs do you and save actually support?
Your support of Bush effectively negates your charity work because cons are making life harder for people.
Really? Explain in one area where President Bush has made life harder for poor people prior to when he took office. And I am not talking about things that are beyond his control like gas prices and the mortgage problem. I want specifics please.
I, on the other hand, and many progressives, in addition to personal charity are also consistent enough to support pols that seek to lift people out of poverty. The two are complementary, not contradictory like your position.
Unfortunately, this is based on the false notion that conservatives don’t want to see people lifted out of poverty. As such, your entire premise is bogus.
They’ll never come out and say it, they’ll just veto programs providing health care for kids and chalk it up to “waste” and “pork”.
And there you have the liberal philosophy in a nutshell: “Spend more or it means you don’t care.”
You on the right would prefer we do nothing. The left would rather to try things to fix the issue. I don’t pretend that every solution will work, I think a lot of them in the past have sucked. But the idea here is that you try instead of just saying, “oh well”.
It’s not saying “Oh well.” It’s about taking a different approach when the same thing we’ve done for decades obviously hasn’t worked. The problem is, liberals refuse to say, “We were wrong. This didn’t work and we need to make big changes.” Their solution is just to throw even more money at the problem.
Moderately wealthy to wealthy conservatives think they’ve got theirs and screw any thing remotely governmental to push folks below them into having the tools required to move up.
Nope. Once again it comes down to the fact that conservatives want to take a different approach. You claim that simply dumping money on people doesn’t work, but nobody you’re supporting is proposing anything different.
“I’ve got mine so eff off” is the operating philosophy behind much of conservatism and why many of us find it so rotten.
That’s bogus number one. And number two, what’s rotten is fostering an environment that creates dependency and doesn’t seek to lift people up, but rather keep them down in an effort to continue to procure tax dollars.
Jay, then could you please translate this for the rest of us:
“The point being, while there are people that fit the technical definition of poor, there isn’t this need for a massive government program like John Edwards is advocating to ‘fix’ the problem.”
There’s nothing to translate. It speaks for itself. Perhaps you can explain how you read that an extrapolated out of it that I claimed “there is no need for the government to address the issue of poverty this country in any serious or concerted way because most of the poor in this country are not as bad off as in other countries.”
I mean, the two statements aren’t even CLOSE, yet that’s what you concluded? Cripes.
ah yes, and once we factor in this windfall, that’s how this family of five can afford a Lexus on $25k. Now i get it. Geez, it’s a wonder anyone complains about poverty at all.
Well be a smartass all you want. You’re the one that insinuated a family of five living on $25,000 a year lives on that money alone and nothing else.
Of course, how many of those government programs do you and save actually support?
All of them.
Jay is so funny. What about the trillion or so down the rat hole called Iraq?
Conservative my fat ass.
Greedy shit republicans will go to hell.
“Explain in one area where President Bush has made life harder for poor people prior to when he took office. ”
Funny Jay. You exempt things like Gas prices which you claim Bush policies have no bearing on. Two simple points, Bush’s energy policy was written by the oil companies. Bush invaded Iraq. Two policies that have had immense bearing on gas prices.
How about mine safety? 9-11 workers? New Orleans?
Cronyism and government for sale.
Retirees getting screwed by investment fraud and funky bookkeeping? Anyone getting sick from Bush’s destruction of the EPA (9-11 workers for instance)?
All results of slashing enforcement budgets to next to nothing.
S-Chip regulation? Seniors having to buy expensive prescription drugs?
Screw you poor people.
CAFTA? 1 million dead Iraqis? Medical Marijuana users? etc…
I’m going to donate money to the JayCarusoSpecial Olympics.
He’s a cinch for gold in Greco-Logic Wrestling and Best all-Around Twit.
Midderpidge is absolutlely right; Katrina is an outstanding example of his failures and incompetence.
Iraq drains money and lives–our grandkids will be paying for Bush’s folly.
Midderpidge, I’m not interested in your Democratic talking point psychobabble. Unless you have verifiable evidence that Bush’s policies are directly responsible for gas prices, I’m not interested. Your dumbass accusations about investment fraud and funky bookkeeping were taking place when your boy Clinton was President. It was under the Bush administration that those responsible were prosecuted and punished. I guess Bill Clinton hated the poor.
Hey Jade, did you come here to get schooled again or do you still want to make an ass of yourself talking about Keith Richards right hand prowess?
If you aren’t interested in answers don’t ask questions dipshit.
Are you trying to tell me that Bush’s stupid invasion of Iraq has no bearing on gas prices? Not counting destabilizing an oil producing cuntry and the entire middle east, the US military, which is the largest user of oil and gas in the world, is using 5 times more fuel than it normally would. Simple.
Yes, legislation by a Republican congress helped lead to the Enron style corruption and fraud problem. It was very public. That led to some very public legislation to address the problem, which was completely undercut by Bush very quietly slashing the enforcement budget down to next to nothing. It’s like passing a bunch of laws to keep the cowhands from shooting up the saloon and terrorizing the town while firing the sherriff.
I think your ass is feeling jealous with you picking all these cherries.
“They’ll never come out and say it, they’ll just veto programs providing health care for kids and chalk it up to “waste” and “pork”.”
You mean programs that Democrats seek to increase the scope of to the point that any child of any family earning up to $80,000 a year will be covered under?
My wife and I don’t make near that amount per year. Yet, we’ve had no problems covering the healthcare expenses of our child, and she’s been to the doctor quite a bit this year.
Certainly there are situations where children in truly impoverished families need that kind of healthcare coverage that only the government can provide. But not when the annual household income is damn near $80,000 a year.
That IS wasteful spending.
let me ask you, jay, since you’re so big on answering questions directly, what exactly is your definition of “technically poor”?
I can pick cherries too:
Jay responds to:
“They’ll never come out and say it, they’ll just veto programs providing health care for kids and chalk it up to “waste” and “pork”.
And there you have the liberal philosophy in a nutshell: “Spend more or it means you don’t care.
Jay neatly sums up the conservative essence of the argument. Providing poor people with health care and other positive social benefits is a waste of money.
Next point, Jay says:
The problem is, you like most liberals think that as long as their is a shiny new government program that is always one size fits all, it doesn’t matter how much it costs, it doesn’t matter how much it overlaps with already existing programs, it doesn’t matter how much waste, fraud and mismanagement is part of it. As long as it EXISTS, then it must be good.
Apparently Jay hasn’t been paying very good attention the past few years as the Bush administration tried to privatize so many things. All of which has led to runaway costs, overlaps, waste, fraud and mismanagement on a scale never seen before. All of this divorced from any pretense of oversight and accountability.
Just to add, in your original post you compare a single working mother who drives a camry and owns versace jeans (real versace jeans or much cheaper knock offs jay?) with a retired couple living in SS and a pension in “a 2000 sq foot home, with a two car garage and a big swimming pool.”
Um, Jay, a fucking 2000 sq ft home is a pretty considerable asset especially when stacked up against a pair of jeans and a used car, which, as far as i know, aren’t real assets at all. And yet you suggest that they are both “technically” poor. Well, jay, they are not both fucking technically poor. One has considerable assets and the other has a pair of jeans.
And yet based on this comparison you want to argue that there really isn’t a problem with poverty in this country, at least not one that would require any kind of new government initiative.
Also, FYI, here’s what the census includes when calculating income for poverty stats:
Nice try Gravypan.
I’m glad your family has no problems paying for the health care expenses for your child. I would assume this means you have no health insurance for her, and probably none for yourself. I am glad she doesn’t have a chronic and expensive pre-existing condition, because if she did, you would never get health insurance for her.
I am glad you are willing to bet on yourself remaining healthy against the unlikely event of you or your spouse contracting a debilitating condition. Because when you make around $80,000 a year, it is hard to turn in the Lexus so you can afford the $11 or 12 thousand dollars it would cost you to purchase health insurance coverage for your family. On the plus side, you aren’t tied to a job you hate because you can’t afford to lose your insurance if you leave it.
You are indeed, a lucky duck.
Well, jay, they are not both fucking technically poor. One has considerable assets and the other has a pair of jeans.
Good! You’re now starting to understand what I’m talking about and you’re doing so in the guise of being a smart ass.
Under government guidelines a person with a 2000 sq foot home could be seen as ‘poor’ just like the person with the jeans. Assets are not the same as income. It’s the same kind of logic that dictates a wealthy retiree can collect full SS benefits, while the retiree that has to work part time as a grocery store bagger gets reduced SS payments per month because of the income he earns working part time.
And yet based on this comparison you want to argue that there really isn’t a problem with poverty in this country, at least not one that would require any kind of new government initiative.
No ass. That’s not what I am arguing at all. What I am arguing is that there is not a one size fits all approach that is necessary. If you would pay attention, you’d see that’s what I said all along, but you choose to put the blinders on and just make shit up.
I would assume this means you have no health insurance for her
You assume wrong. In fact, all of your assumptions about me and my family are as off the mark in this comment as Oliver usually is with his preconceived notions about anyone to the right of him on the political spectrum.
I’m glad your family has no problems paying for the health care expenses for your child. I would assume this means you have no health insurance for her, and probably none for yourself. I am glad she doesn’t have a chronic and expensive pre-existing condition, because if she did, you would never get health insurance for her.
I am glad you are willing to bet on yourself remaining healthy against the unlikely event of you or your spouse contracting a debilitating condition. Because when you make around $80,000 a year, it is hard to turn in the Lexus so you can afford the $11 or 12 thousand dollars it would cost you to purchase health insurance coverage for your family. On the plus side, you aren’t tied to a job you hate because you can’t afford to lose your insurance if you leave it.
And this is George Bush’s fault!!!
Oh cmon Gravypan. You’re just another one of those rich Republicans that would rather spit on the poor than help them! Admit it already!
Jay thinks $100,000 a year salary is chump change so I don’t think he can be rationally engaged on this issue. I’m willing to concede that too often liberal solutions say “spend more” especially on things like education, but the conservative alternative of not spending anything is what gives us a crappy infrastructure, insufficient armaments for soldiers, a horrid disaster response effort, etc. I have supported policies like welfare reform and No Child Left Behind that are at least focused on fighting a problem and doing it smartly. But conservatives simply don’t see things that way. They want to cut everything but corporate welfare, take their money and go home. That cannot work because we are trying to operate a society here.
Jay thinks $100,000 a year salary is chump change so I don’t think he can be rationally engaged on this issue.
Uh, wrong. I never said making $100,000 per year was chump change. You however, defined it as “rich.”
I’m willing to concede that too often liberal solutions say “spend more” especially on things like education, but the conservative alternative of not spending anything
Again, your position put up against false assertions. How do you expect somebody respond to something that is so intellectually bogus that it borders on parody?
You guys just don’t get it.
Of course you have employer-provided health insurance gravypan. If you didn’t, you wouldn’t be so cavalier about paying a few $10 or $15 copays for some office visits. Now imagine how you’d feel if you didn’t have that insurance and re-read my post.
Ditto for Jay. Neither one of you seem to have any idea about how much decent health insurance costs these days. Or how screwed you are if you have something like diabetes etc. All you guys see is SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Which causes you to ignore how 2 million+ are added to the uninsured rolls every year, how insurance premiums rise so quickly every year, how insurance companies pay out less every year and how more employers are dropping coverage or pushing more onto their employees (i seem to recall some whining from Jay a few years ago) among other problems.
So a few states want to offer coverage to the uninsured, especially children. You seem to have no problem with flushing $80 billion dollars of Iraq reconstruction funds down the drain and the cost is too high. Right.
The US pays more for health care than any other nation in the world yet we are ranked lower than any industrialized country in what we get. Deal with it. Jay FRANCE!!!!! France pays less of their GDP for health insurance than the US. Just so you know.
This discussion goes back to a core conservative problem- they hate the government. The way I look at problems is that donating to charity is fine, but on a large scale it can’t guarantee a minimum standard for everyone. Donations to charity are capricious and don’t hit everyone who needs relief in the proportion that they need. In the Depression we already found that out, and in the rest of the world (like Cambodia) where there are no social programs you see that charity investment can’t begin to lift the populace out of poverty.
Conservatives have put forth this strawman that money spent on relieving poverty is mostly waste. The reality is what Oliver said, you try some things and they work, and you try other things and they don’t. You do more of what does work. Reality is that the poverty rate fell by nearly 1/2 during the Great Society period before stablilizing during Carter and exploding again under Reagan.
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov4.html
It’s no coincidence that the states where there is the highest poverty is the states where Republicans have destroyed social services. The reality is that Republicans aren’t willing to invest so that every link in the fence is strong. They would be ok with a society like Columbia, where the upper middle class and higher have to hire security guards and drivers to guard their stuff when they go to work.
Back to the original point. Conservatives hate the government (except the pentagon). Ultimately, though, the government is us. All of us. To hate the government is to hate America. Now, someone can hate parts of the government, or government officials, but to hate the government is to hate what makes America great- our ability to mold and shape the government to serve our needs.
Neither one of you seem to have any idea about how much decent health insurance costs these days.
Actually, I do.
This discussion goes back to a core conservative problem- they hate the government.
Oh brother. Can we put aside the histrionics please?
Conservatives have put forth this strawman that money spent on relieving poverty is mostly waste.
No, that is incorrect. What conservatives believe is that too much money is wasted attempting to relieve poverty. There’s a big difference.
The reality is what Oliver said, you try some things and they work, and you try other things and they don’t.
The problem is, when something doesn’t work, the only solution liberals come up with is that it’s not working because not enough money is being spent. I’d love for a liberal to point to a particular program and say, “This isn’t working as we intended. Let’s do away with it and try something else.”
But that doesn’t happen. When conservatives say, “This isn’t working. Let’s get rid of it”, they’re immediately demonized as “not caring” or wanting to “cut programs for the poor to provide tax cuts for the rich.”
Reality is that the poverty rate fell by nearly 1/2 during the Great Society period before stablilizing during Carter and exploding again under Reagan.
Yeah, Reagan came into office and the poverty rate just blew up the next year. Things take time to determine whether or not it is working. It’s no coincidence that a little decade after the introduction the Great Society, poverty was higher than ever.
Um Jay, I have news for you, it isn’t just Democrats that let non-workng programs and policies continue. It’s the nature of our government.
An additional problem we have is that Republicans and to a lesser extent Democrats look at some programs that work to some extent and then start slashing them down to non-working status or privatize them because some big business donors can make money. Usually at the expen$e of the tax payers.
“What I am arguing is that there is not a one size fits all approach that is necessary.”
Um, that’s definitely not what you said. You suggested that poverty isn’t so bad in America that there’s a need for any new kind of government initiative to deal with it.
You base this assertion on a string of unsupported, unverifiable facts from the Heritage Foundation and your own, again, patronizing anecdotes that someone with designer jeans and a camry really can’t be considered poor because they’re so much better off than someone in a third world country.
That’s simply horseshit.
Um, that’s definitely not what you said.
Um, yes it is.
You suggested that poverty isn’t so bad in America that there’s a need for any new kind of government initiative to deal with it.
No that is not what I suggested.
You base this assertion on a string of unsupported, unverifiable facts from the Heritage Foundation
Once again, I made no such assertion, therefore this is more of your bullshit.
patronizing anecdotes that someone with designer jeans and a camry really can’t be considered poor because they’re so much better off than someone in a third world country.
No, I did not say that either. Not even close.
This is getting boring.
wow, you sure don’t say much do you?
I say plenty. But you come along like a little girl and say, “No no no. That’s not what you said. This is what you said!” even after it’s been repeated to you.
Jay your a hoot boy.
Getting your butt kicked and now your bored.
Yeah, I’m bored. Bored with a guy that says, “You said the sky was purple!” when I clearly said, “The sky is blue.”
“It’s no coincidence that a little decade after the introduction the Great Society, poverty was higher than ever.”
Prove it. I posted figures from the census that said that poverty had fallen 40% by 1975. So prove that poverty grew in 10 years of the Great Society or STFU. I won’t hold my breath. If history is a guide you will ignore it or change the subject (or both).
“Yeah, I’m bored. Bored with a guy that says, “You said the sky was purple!” when I clearly said, “The sky is blue.”"
If you’re so bored go away. No one really wants you here anyway. Maybe you can go find Frank (but don’t bring him back here).
“Yeah, I’m bored. Bored with a guy that says, “You said the sky was purple!” when I clearly said, “The sky is blue.”"
If you’re so bored go away. No one really wants you here anyway. Maybe you can go find Frank (but don’t bring him back here).
“But you come along like a little girl …”
Classic. How old are you? Like four?
Jay you wrote:
What else is someone to take away from this except that you don’t think there’s a need for any new programs to address poverty in this country because some poor people own camrys?
There is a legitimate debate about how best to measure poverty in this country, whether the measure should be based on income or expenditures or a combination of both. As per the national Poverty Center:
Now i’m not sure how long a working poor mother can live high on the hog by drawing down the assets of her designer jeans and used camry but I’m willing to bet it ain’t long. To suggest that poverty isn’t a problem because poor people can still live beyond their means by drawing down assets, racking up credit debt or borrowing from others is totally insane.
You would rather paper over the problem than address the real conditions of people’s lives.
You and Rector suggest that owning a five or ten year old camry or color tv somehow eliminates the stress of coming up with rent, grocery and health care money every month.
That’s just right wing bullshit.
If you’re so bored go away. No one really wants you here anyway.
I could care less whether or not somebody ‘wants’ me here or not. I’m sure you’re more content to have a big echo chamber to hang out, but it’s an open comment section. If Oliver wants to ban me, he’s free to do so.
Hey, just a suggestion. You always seem angry and everyone attacks your stupid statements. Most people would just go somewhere where they are wanted but not you… Then again that could be nowhere.
Still waiting for those poverty statistics proving that poverty went up in the 10 years after the start of the Great Society.
What else is someone to take away from this except that you don’t think there’s a need for any new programs to address poverty in this country because some poor people own camrys?
Somebody with a brain would be able to come away with something else.
First of all, there are degrees of poverty, ok simpleton? The poor people that live in places like Martin County, KY in Appalachia are seriously impoverished. Forget what kind of car they drive. Some of these people don’t even have access to clean water and sanitation facilities. Their definition of buying new clothes is when an older sibling grows out of theirs.
Now, should the same principles of addressing those poor people be applied to the people who are identified by the government as poor, but yet can still afford cars, new clothes, televisions, etc?
Answer: No.
Ding! Ding! Ding!
And that is what I have been saying all along. If you’d pull your head out of your ass for just one second, you’d realize that. But no. You have an agenda. And that agenda is to be an asshole somehow attribute to me (or anybody else) shit that gets made up in that little itty bitty mind of yours and proclaim, “This is what you really said!” like saying that I made the claim “we don’t need any new programs to address poverty because this person over here drives a Camry.” I mean, what does your brain do that you could possibly come to such a stupid fucking conclusion?
To suggest that poverty isn’t a problem
See what I mean? You’re debating a position not a single person here has taken. That’s what I mean when I talk about your intellectual dishonesty.
You would rather paper over the problem than address the real conditions of people’s lives.
No, what I would rather do is make sure that the problems being addressed are not one huge “one size fits all” ‘plan’ that doesn’t take into account the differing degrees of poverty in this country.
You and Rector suggest that owning a five or ten year old camry or color tv somehow eliminates the stress of coming up with rent, grocery and health care money every month.
Here we go again with more of your bullshit. I never suggested anything like that. Quit being such a brazen freaking liar.
You always seem angry
Actually, one has to have an amazing sense of humor to post comments here, especially since the majority of responses will stupid. Kind of like yours.
Still waiting for that info you are going to find for me.
Ooh I get it now. So when you wrote:
“…there isn’t this need for a massive government program like John Edwards is advocating to ‘fix’ the problem.”
what you really meant was we need a number of different government programs tailored to address different degrees of poverty. Hmmmh… but was Edwards really advocating one massive, one size fits all policy?
Of course he isn’t:
http://johnedwards.com/issues/poverty/
It’s obvious you went from arguing that poverty is not a problem that needs to be fixed to well, poverty is a problem that requires a lot of different fixes. If you look at Edwards’ website you’ll see that he has listed a variety of different initiatives to tackle a variety of different factors that impact poverty and quality of life from rural poverty to urban housing.
What was that about agendas Jay?
It’s obvious you went from arguing that poverty is not a problem
I guess it’s only obvious to those who have extremely poor reading comprehension skills.
I’m done. I’ve wasted enough minutes of my life attempting to get you to comment on what I have actually written, and not what think is “obvious”, but it’s clear the time could be better spent….I don’t know, clipping my toenails or something. I’ll go back to ignoring you.
Leave him alone, frame. He needs time to go find the information that proves that poverty went up in the 10 years after the Great Society.
Or he’s a jackass that is talking out of his ass, whichever.
“I guess it’s only obvious to those who have extremely poor reading comprehension skills.”
No doubt you have, in the meantime, turned your own keen reading comprehension skills to Edwards’s poverty initiatives and realized you are a complete idiot.
Jay has a lot of time and little brains so he posts lots of STUFF.
The thing is, whenever someone calls him on it he changes the subject, calls people names, and runs away.
Gonna read the rest of this later, but..
It’s kind of like wearing an AIDS ribbon. Wear the ribbon and shows people you care. It doesn’t mean you’re doing shit about it, but you care.
That’s lame and its hypocritical.
I kinda agree with Jay on this bit. Yellow ribbons, pink, red, blue plus those rubber bracelets of many colors. And the magnets. Oh, God, the magnets.
Empty rhetoric.