[Natashasuw]

But if that makes you feel better, it's one way to get over the issue.

A standard formula:

1. Widespread economic pressure on the middle-class. (TRUE)

2. Entitlement and abuse by a percentage of people below the poverty level. (TRUE)

Convince the people of #1 that the elimination of #2 is going to solve their problems.

[longrema]

... the difference in what we consider poverty, and what it is a lot of the rest of the world.

Actually what you describe above is in regard to probable imminent death, not poverty.

The US Govt uses a slew of definitions and empirical measurements.

If someone wants to claim that conditions in someplace like Somalia are the proper benchmark for what's allowable in the USA, then not much can be done to knock that loose.

[DebtDetox]

When elimination of ALL FUNDING TO THE LOWER CLASS will not do squat.

With a larger chunk of the wealth, people bear a larger chunk of the responsibility to hold their end, unless we eliminate all tax benefits, special programs, locked in government contracts, and other benefits the more affluent individuals (and corporations) have been able to aquire for themselves.

I would bet money that if you looked at the cash that has either been lost to, or just plain given out to individuals and corporations above even what we would call affluent or large scale, you would see an enormous difference between capital spent on corporations and capital spent on social aid.

[QEoMi752]

Yeah, you can, deprivation to the point of iminent death by starvation is a pretty good absolute. That is pretty widespread around the world.

Of what use is that? What you describe is how medical rescue workers respond in disaster areas.

Poverty has to be relative, or you get Jacks ridiculous concept of impoverished.

[Neitteloxesia]

Burying folks is cheaper than feeding them.

Bottom line, if they can't cut it then so be it.

That's the America we want?

[amberamuletuk]

I thought we were "better" than Somalia....


Are you saying we should keep to the same standards as third world impoverished nations when it comes to fiscal ratings?

BTW, the US does not lend itself easily to the same kind of tribal-living-in-grass-huts lifestyles.

Add insult to injury, when people are not ALLOWED to "live off the land" because someone else owns it... I mean, look what happened to the original Americans..... (BEFORE the casinos, that is)

[duminyricky]

People have a Grapes of Wrath view of poverty.

[erubresen]

I will remember to keep a mouse in my pocket.

[amannddo]

Thankfully.

But it does point out the difference in what we consider poverty, and what it is a lot of the rest of the world.

Europe included?

[raskrutkaseo]

No, all I'm saying is what's considered poverty here, would be considered a significantly luxurious lifestyle in much of the world (Somalia definitely included). That's all.

I thought we were "better" than Somalia....


Are you saying we should keep to the same standards as third world impoverished nations when it comes to fiscal ratings?

BTW, the US does not lend itself easily to the same kind of tribal-living-in-grass-huts lifestyles.

Add insult to injury, when people are not ALLOWED to "live off the land" because someone else owns it... I mean, look what happened to the original Americans..... (BEFORE the casinos, that is)

[doksSirmAdods]

The flip side is, how many unproductive can the productive support? And does the safety net breed nonproductivity?

Burying folks is cheaper than feeding them.

Bottom line, if they can't cut it then so be it.

That's the America we want?

[ceagsoosy]

First Collector: At this festive time of year, Mr. Scrooge, it is more than usually desirable that we should make some slight provision for the poor and destitute.
Ebenezer: Are there no prisons?
First Collector: Plenty of prisons.
Ebenezer: And the union workhouses - are they still in operation?
First Collector: They are. I wish I could say they were not.
Ebenezer: Oh, from what you said at first I was afraid that something had happened to stop them in their useful course. I'm very glad to hear it.
First Collector: I don't think you quite understand us, sir. A few of us are endeavoring to buy the poor some meat and drink, and means of warmth.
Ebenezer: Why?
First Collector: Because it is at Christmastime that want is most keenly felt, and abundance rejoices. Now what can I put you down for?
Ebenezer: Huh! Nothing!
Second Collector: You wish to be anonymous?
Ebenezer: [firmly, but calmly] I wish to be left alone. Since you ask me what I wish sir, that is my answer. I help to support the establishments I have named; those who are badly off must go there.
First Collector: Many can't go there.
Second Collector: And some would rather die.

[Asianunta]

The flip side is, how many unproductive can the productive support? And does the safety net breed nonproductivity?

I have a big problem equating poverty stricken with unproductive. Frankly, it is offensive.

Many of the poverty stricken are working poor and NOT unproductive. But they are underpaid.

Moreover, many of our underemployed citizens are so because of macroeconomic conditions. They may be underemployed, but they are not necessarily unproductive.

You seem to have a penchant for gauging one's productivity on the basis of one's income. Do you really think that the Average CEO is 400 times more productive than the average corporate employee??

[netamargr]

It should be noted here that labor is a commodity and like all commodites commands a price (in this case known as 'wages') in an opem market that is driven by supply and demand dynamics. The fact that a given job type commands a low price, or poverty range wage is an indication that there exists an over-supply of people with the skills that are necessary to perform that job, relative to the demand for people with those skills. It does NOT mean that people employed in those fields work any less hard or are any less productive than the rest of society, only that their services are not in great demand. The cause of this is for the most part weak macroeconomic employment conditions that undercut employment opportunities.


This idea that the working poor are unproductive is tea party drivel. It is typical of the overly simplified rationalizations that are emblamatic to most tea party arguements. If it helps them sleep at night, fine, but don't pretend that it is not pure unadulterated bullshit.

[makemoneyonli]

I have a big problem equating poverty stricken with unproductive. Frankly, it is offensive.

Many of the poverty stricken are working poor and NOT unproductive. But they are underpaid.

Working poor unproductive. Since they're working, they are probably carrying most of their own load, but with difficulty.


Moreover, many of our underemployed citizens are so because of macroeconomic conditions. They may be underemployed, but they are not necessarily unproductive.
Unemployed = unproductive. If they're receiving benefits, they're being carried. Not so much a moral issue (yes, it may or may not be their fault), but a financial one. They're a drag on the system.

You seem to have a penchant for gauging one's productivity on the basis of one's income. Do you really think that the Average CEO is 400 times more productive than the average corporate employee?? Depends how you look at it. They deploy vastly more assets, their decisions effect vastly more money and people. They have much more individual influence on events. In that sense yes.

But that's not the point. This isn't about equality. It's about survival and success/failure at the national level. If too much in the way of national assets are waisted propping up citizens who really need to be supporting themselves, it isn't being deployed in ways that could be building assets and national strength going forward.

For example, something like 43% of the federal budget is spent on the elderly. Is this smart? Are we investing a vast amount of money in people who are never again going to be productive? While it would never happen, what would happen if we wholely cut this off an redeployed it to education, infrastructure, and other investments that would actually yield a future return? Which would make us more competitive with our surging competitors (China and others.)?

[ñàéäèíã]

For example, something like 43% of the federal budget is spent on the elderly. Is this smart? Are we investing a vast amount of money in people who are never again going to be productive?
do you really believe that old age means you will never again be productive...just wait till you get old ...?!

[Tnzxovoz]

If they can be productive, why do we need all these programs to support them?

[Siuchingach]

Unemployed = unproductive. If they're receiving benefits, they're being carried. Not so much a moral issue (yes, it may or may not be their fault), but a financial one. They're a drag on the system.

Okay, I'll take the bait ...

What do you suggest that we DO with all those unproductive types that are dragging you down? And please carry out the argument to the end, and not simply post the easy first step of cutting them loose.

[NADALA]

@BBMW The idea that you can gauge one's productivity levels by one's income levels is pure fallacy. The average fortune 500 CEO earns 400 times more than his average employee. There is no way she/he is 400 X more productive. The fact is, the game is rigged against the average Joe. More and more we are becoming like Locomotive Breadth (that one was for Zippy).

BTW, my reference was to UNDER employed, not unemployed.

Working poor does NOT equal unproductive. People in these roles are often performing valuable functions. They are just not being compensated for the work they do. Their compensation levels are not commensurate with their contributions. That does not make them unproductive, it makes the exploited. And as for the elderly, why don't we just kill them when they reach 65.

LIke I said, it is pure rationalization and bullshit. But whatever helps you sleep at night...

[budumol]

The fact is, the game is rigged against the average Joe. More and more we are becoming like Locomotive Breadth (that one was for Zippy).

Noted.