maybe i'm missing something; i don't get it.

I guess your point is that somehow since i do not pay $100-$150 for my own health insurance policy which would be 10% or less of my month expenses then somehow i am out of touch of having to take care of myself or the capability for people on low incomes to make the most out of their paycheck w/o being on welfare. Am i right?

4/25/2008 12:43:04 PM

The fact that you think 13k a year is a livable salary outside of college is what is funny.

4/25/2008 12:45:58 PM

I didnt say it was livable but it is sustainable w/o having to use gov't handouts. 13K spread over a whole year is a job paying <$7/hr for someone working 40 hours 50 weeks a year. Since the minimum wage is going up to or is already at in some places $6.50, i assume then the average welfare recipient unless they are choosing not to work are making more then this.

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 12:52 PM. Reason : a]

4/25/2008 12:52:29 PM

You're also assuming no injuries, emergencies or anything. You're really stupid and out of touch with the real world.

4/25/2008 12:58:31 PM

That is why we buy health insurance duhhh
and not drop our coverage so we can buy an extra dime bag, or the monthly payment so we can put a 46" LCD TV in our double wide trailer.

4/25/2008 1:00:20 PM

Are you fucking stupid? Do you realize how much health insurance that doesn't have a deductible costs? The 100-150 dollar insurance that you are quoting has anywhere from a 3k to 5k deductible before insurance will pay ANYTHING, and even after that you have to pay anywhere from 30-70% of the bill after you've paid the full deductible.

4/25/2008 1:03:16 PM

blah blah blah
feel free to continue to unquestionably giving away a generous portion of your annual income to subsidize the lives of people who never take any responsibility for their well being and instead choose to live on the gov't.

4/25/2008 1:08:32 PM

I like how when you are faced with the truth you drop your argument completely.


Fact: 13k is not livable nor sustainable for anyone not in school.
Fact: Insurance sucks unless you pay huge amounts of money for it, and then it still sucks.

4/25/2008 1:10:28 PM

^ please explain.

Are you implying that my status as a "student" somehow gets me out of paying for rent, food, electric bill, cell phone bill, gasoline???

Your rebuttal by arguing b.c i'm in "school" makes no sense. True i am not saving for the future at current but this makes me no different then such a large number of americans that also live paycheck to paycheck and don't save.



Looks like the current social services programs would serve you well. You can sit on your couch all day playing video games and smoking pot. Only getting up to grab the bag of doritos or to buy that next 1/8 using money you get from your next welfare check. After all you are a struggling member of the lower class and need gov't assistance to reconcile the injustice our society has forced upon you.

Quote :

"Fact: 13k is not livable nor sustainable for anyone not in school."

btw tell this to Jose who is very thankful to have even snuck into this country and have a job mowing grass or cleaning dishes while making below minimum wage. Guess what also Jose can't get a welfare check or sign up for the EBT (food stamp) program since he is an illegal citizen. I guess when he leaves the construction site he goes back to his box under the highway and feeds on scraps of food out of dumpsters

get a clue

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 1:17 PM. Reason : a]

4/25/2008 1:14:44 PM

This is a difficult topic, and I have waited a while to jump in on this. As is slowly becoming more and more par for the course, I will begin with saying, "I agree with SkankinMonkey." The amount of earning that the bottom 50% of America sees is not keeping up with the increasing demands on everybody's pocketbook. The poor are, indeed, getting poorer.
The mark of a well-off society is how well they treat their poorest members, not their richest. We are all humans, and are all entitled to be at least somewhat taken care of by the ruling classes, which, in a capitalistic society, is our most wealth-earning members. Why? Because we all have the same ability to pick up a gun and fight. Every time a country has failed to take care of its poorest members, not its richest, revolts have happened, and the whole country got knocked back to square one. There's no moral crisis involved in this, just a simple analysis of history will tell you why this is a good idea. Yes, it sounds horrible, keeping the lower classes satiated so they don't revolt, but at SOME level, that's what all government relief programs are doing. (Including the loans and government-provided student programs that a good majority of us benefit off of.) I know a number of you are probably laughing at the idea of the stereotypical image of the "fat, welfare mama with 5 kids" that seems to be everyone's idea of a poor person on this thread rising up and overthrowing the government, but any people, pushed too far, will react in this manner.
And, furthermore, one individual succeeding or failing monetarily within our current system doesn't prove or disprove the fundamental need for the relief programs overall. One person being able to live on $13,000 has nothing to do with another individual's ability to live on the same amount of money.

^ Logical fallacy, Ad hominem attack. Nice way to prove your point.

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 1:17 PM. Reason : Where's the debate moderator!]

4/25/2008 1:16:17 PM

i'll agree to your revolution idea. Although i think most americans are to busy watching american idol 13 or reading tabloids about Britteny spear's latest drama to actually stand up and revolt. This, however, is one of the few reasons that i support the status quo on social programs, regardless of how wrong i believe it being that we reward mothers for irresponsible decisions through increased pay out, nor have anything in place to ensure those on welfare are actually seeking employment and not exploiting it.

Quote :

"Ad hominem attack. Nice way to prove your point. "

LuisClues and Skankinmonkey (sp?) started the Ad hominem attacks. I ideally would like to stick to stating arguments and countering refutes but have no problem flinging mud back if it happens.

LuisClues

Quote :

"haha you people are pathetic"

Quote :

"what for all of your internet bad-boy conservative ranting. "

Quote :

"hahahah oh god you can't make this shit up You make me laugh"

SkainkinMonkey

Quote :

"You're really stupid and out of touch with the real world."

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 1:28 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 1:28 PM. Reason : a]

4/25/2008 1:21:48 PM

i say bring more mexicans into america. they work really hard.

one day they won't be 'poor', give it a generation. they'll be the next middle class in america. the chinese seem to migrate over here and not have big issues with poverty and race either.

so wtf is going on with certain groups of people? ain't that some shit?

4/25/2008 1:25:43 PM

^ i say instead of building walls, we invest in teaching those chaps English once they do get here. language is one of the most if not the most important aspect of integration.

4/25/2008 1:28:31 PM

I work full time and pull in a decent income, I'm not poor, but I make enough to enjoy my life, and I don't get welfare, but you knew that, you were just being a dick.

If you are going to point at immigrants as an example of low-income earners then you also have to look at how they live. They often live in small groups, where small pools of low-income earners can stack their wages together and get by easier. Sure, this means that you can indeed get by on 13k a year, but not by yourself, in a group.

For an individual, or a small family, the bar is raised much higher.

Why is it easier for students to get by? Well, for example, if you claim yourself for FAFSA purposes then you don't have to consider your parents wages, which means, as a part-time working student (or not working at all) you can get several thousand dollars for free to pay for college, books, food, and rent. Not only that, you have access to student grants, scholarships, and a plethora of resources to get free money, which is NOT 'earned' (taxed) income.

Also, as a student at NCSU your tuition is largely subsidized by the government, which means, you are benefiting from welfare, you leech.

4/25/2008 1:30:33 PM

Quote :

"the chinese seem to migrate over here and not have big issues with poverty and race either."

yeah i know several asians who along family lines go from mom/dad being chinese restaurant employees or laundry-mat employees and they are engineers/doctors. Taking initiative and working hard seems to be an issue for other races including white trailer park trash.

One of my good friends just graduated from med school and his parents came over here as poor immigrants having been nothing but peasants in China.

Quote :

"if you claim yourself for FAFSA purposes then you don't have to consider your parents wages"

Quote :

"Also, as a student at NCSU your tuition is largely subsidized by the government, which means, you are benefiting from welfare, you leech."

Your logic if flawed here. My parents paid NC taxes for 30+ years and i have paid NC taxes even on my sparse income while in college. Thus i really am just getting what my parents helped paid into, hence why if you are from out of state you pay MORE for tuition. Besides this upon graduating i will be nailed by close to the highest NC income bracket thus helping to fund future incoming classes of students to affordable NC subsidized public university education. Therefore in a way the "subsidy" NC paid on my school is almost like an investment unless i move away.

Last time i checked most welfare recipients either have no income to tax or receive all their taxes back paying a 0% effective federal income tax. Hell some people in the lower quintiles manage to get an actual net CREDIT from the system do to the various rules.

Quote :

"if you claim yourself for FAFSA purposes then you don't have to consider your parents wages"

nope, never qualified. I actually would qualify for the 08-09 academic year as i'd be 24 (the magical age that FAFSA decided you are "independent" unless married/with children/or served in military) and i'd be in grad school (the other qualification). Thus all my tuition was payed via loans.

Quote :

"Also, as a student at NCSU your tuition is largely subsidized by the government, which means, you are benefiting from welfare, you leech."

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 1:40 PM. Reason : l]

4/25/2008 1:30:50 PM

You can make yourself qualify, you just can't have your parents claim you as a dependent, which would also mean you can't be covered by their health or car insurance.

$$$

4/25/2008 1:39:44 PM

HUR, "trailer park trash" exists amongst all races. some races are endorsing it as a way of life/ or using it to play the persecution card.

being poor is never an excuse in america today (not in other places in the world though sadly)

so many opportunities out there. you just need an imagination

4/25/2008 1:41:40 PM

money and/or a good education doesn't hurt either

4/25/2008 1:45:52 PM

Quote :

""trailer park trash" exists amongst all races. some races are endorsing it as a way of life/ or using it to play the persecution card. "

I was just illustrating that i was an "equal opportunity" hater for lazy poor people and not solely just picking on one race who as you say "endorses" life in the ghetto and a gangster lifestyle.

4/25/2008 1:46:41 PM

Quote :

"Fact: 13k is not livable nor sustainable for anyone not in school."

Yes, that is why our grandparents all starved to death, because living without air conditioning, two cars, prepared meals every evening, and digital cable is unlivable, just shoot us now.

What is wrong with you? If people cannot live at your standards then it is not really living? Come on, our ancestors survived without half the shit we have today. So, why cannot someone today survive with half the shit you have? Have you heard there are people elsewhere in the world surviving on $400 a year? Is it really the end of your world if someone is living on only $13k a year?

Quote :

"Hmm yes much better if they starve to death in the most painful of fashions."

LiusClues, again, you were evidently born yesterday and have never seen the real world. it just so happens that the difference between welfare and no-welfare is not eating but whether or not you have Cable TV. Of course, from the statistics I have seen, those in poverty usually cut back on McDonalds before they cut back on Time Warner Cable.

But, again, I choose to subsidize breeding because we need more people, regardless of what kind they turn out to be.

4/25/2008 2:39:21 PM

Quote :

"Yes, that is why our grandparents all starved to death, because living without air conditioning, two cars, prepared meals every evening, and digital cable is unlivable, just shoot us now."

Quote :

"LiusClues, again, you were evidently born yesterday and have never seen the real world. it just so happens that the difference between welfare and no-welfare is not eating but whether or not you have Cable TV. Of course, from the statistics I have seen, those in poverty usually cut back on McDonalds before they cut back on Time Warner Cable."

PWNAGE

BUT loanshark life without McD's/Hardees 5 times a week, cable TV, a nice 20K sedan in the driveway, having beer everynight to drink, and the unlimited texting cell phone plan is WORSE than death

I forgot at some point that added to the bill of rights...

The Right to receive food subsidizes to birth an unlimited number of children.
The Right to have cable TV.
The Right to receive money if thou chooses not to be burdened by holding a job.

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 3:04 PM. Reason : a]

4/25/2008 2:44:52 PM

The US poverty line in 2007 was $10,210, which puts you at slightly above the poverty line. So yes, you are 'wealthy.'

Quote :

" Yes, that is why our grandparents all starved to death, because living without air conditioning, two cars, prepared meals every evening, and digital cable is unlivable, just shoot us now."

You know 13k today is completely different from 13k during the great depression. If you want to adjust the dollar amount for the time then we may have a valid comparison.

Also, comparing other countries to ours is not even applicable to this conversation. If you want poverty in the US to be ignored until we have africa-style poverty then I say that you are a greedy SOB and I hope bad luck falls on you and you need assistance.

I mean really, you're comparing apples with oranges when you bring these examples up, and you know it.

The US has a higher standard of living than Africa, to ignore things like this and say 'people can live on 400 a year (in the us)!' is probably one of the STUPIDEST things I've ever read on TWW.

4/25/2008 3:25:34 PM

hooray i'm wealthy on 13K a year.

I love all the armchair philanthropists in TSB that are quick to speak out about the plight of the poor.

Quote :

"Who gets a payment? * $600 to singles making less than $75,000 * $1,200 to couples making less than $150,000 * $300 rebates per child"

http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/25/news/economy/rebate_update/?postversion=2008042514

Awesome so LaSwanda or BeckySue who maybe earned $13K last year gets back a bonus $300 for every kid she popped out even if after filing her income taxes she had a net federal tax liability of 0%. I am glad my parents work hard so Becky Sue can maybe use that extra $1200 from her 4 kids to take that vacation to myrtle beach, while her 48 yr old mother babysits, where she gets knocked up by some truck driver she meets at the strip.
If that does not sound like a reward for having more children then i do not know what does.

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 3:56 PM. Reason : a]

4/25/2008 3:37:07 PM

Quote :

"Great, so by your admission they get more benefits with each kid. THANK YOU"

The fact that you think we were ever arguing about this indicates just how profoundly you have missed the point of absolutely everything I have said.

Quote :

"Well does it take 25k a month to raise britney's kids?"

WTF are you talking about?

Quote :

"If you got 0 benefits before your kid, and now you have food stamps, housing, and welfare... then id say your fucking better off."

KIDS COST MONEY

THEY COST A LOT OF MONEY

And unless those benefits are more than that cost, you are, by definition, NOT BETTER OFF

Quote :

"People like you are to blame for the current mindset of society that the gov't "owes" them"

You're kind of an idiot. It's not that the government owes the parents, it's that the children have to be maintained. If there was some happy, remotely constitutional way to keep poor kids fed, clothed, and housed while giving the parents nothing but a big fat middle finger, I'd probably be cool with it.

4/25/2008 3:53:20 PM

Quote :

"$300 for every kid she popped out "

There is a max reimbursement of 1600, I believe.

4/25/2008 4:01:51 PM

Quote :

" You're kind of an idiot. "

good rebuttal! Did you learn that in 3rd grade.

Ad Hominem for da wins

4/25/2008 4:22:43 PM

Are you seriously trying to attack people for making ad hominem attacks?


Seriously?

4/25/2008 4:24:05 PM

Quote :

"good rebuttal!"

The rebuttal came immediately after that comment, which was there primarily for my own amusement.

4/25/2008 4:27:39 PM

^^ hey you and luisclues started the ad hom attacks.

4/25/2008 4:59:36 PM

Quote :

"LiusClues, again, you were evidently born yesterday and have never seen the real world. it just so happens that the difference between welfare and no-welfare is not eating but whether or not you have Cable TV. Of course, from the statistics I have seen, those in poverty usually cut back on McDonalds before they cut back on Time Warner Cable. But, again, I choose to subsidize breeding because we need more people, regardless of what kind they turn out to be."

What's this? People aren't rational actors?

Call all economists.

4/25/2008 5:44:13 PM

Quote :

"It's not that the government owes the parents, it's that the children have to be maintained. If there was some happy, remotely constitutional way to keep poor kids fed, clothed, and housed while giving the parents nothing but a big fat middle finger, I'd probably be cool with it."

Agreed 100%. The rest of you GOPers catch the fuck up -- Grumpy's way ahead of you.

4/25/2008 5:45:31 PM

Quote :

"What's this? People aren't rational actors?"

Are you daft? I would give up McDonalds long before I gave up my digital cable. I can make my own sandwitch, but I cannot make my own Showtime Original Programming (Dexter rocks!)

Quote :

"It's not that the government owes the parents, it's that the children have to be maintained."

Begging the question. That children cost money it does not follow that the government should pay for it.

Quote :

"If there was some happy, remotely constitutional way to keep poor kids fed, clothed, and housed while giving the parents nothing but a big fat middle finger, I'd probably be cool with it."

They are called orphanages and have existed throughout history. They tend to be charity supported, but they do exist as wards of the state. Back in the old days people that were too poor to raise their children gave them up to others to raise. Luckily today we have transfer payments so even the poorest among us can enjoy parent hood. And they must enjoy it: because it is still legal to give up your children for whatever reason, including poverty. That people do not means that like pets, they may be expensive, but the enjoyment of parenthood (coupled with government checks) are compensation enough.

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 6:03 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/25/2008 5:57:12 PM

RATIONAL ACTORS

You're a complete fucking idiot.

4/25/2008 6:02:34 PM

I guess you don't know what the term "rational actors" means. If their behavior is rational then they are rational actors. Your stupidity truely is boundless, even after you are corrected.

4/25/2008 6:04:21 PM

Rational actors -> if they behave rationally. Oh okay I got it now, thanks.

Ahahaaaaa shit's great. Throw a formalism on ANYTHING and you can pass it as science.

4/25/2008 6:07:07 PM

Quote :

"That children cost money it does not follow that the government should pay for it."

Fair enough. But I've come across very, very, very few people who are perfectly willing to have the government do nothing to keep kids from starving. I'll admit to skipping a step and just kind of assuming that everyone was at least on that page.

4/26/2008 12:44:15 AM

Quote :

"Look, I have given you arguments why technocracy sucks and yet you do not bother refuting them."

I have refuted them. You continue to insist energy accounting might as well be money. This is not the case. It won't have the problems you claim because it's a different beast.

Quote :

"Where would that be?"

Planet Earth.

Quote :

"I have the odd distinction that no capitalist country has ever suffered widespread famine with death from starvation."

What about the Irish Potato Famine? Or were they dirty commies? In fact, the British government specifically attempted to preserve private enterprise when dealing with the disaster. A million people died.

Quote :

"Meanwhile, every centrally planned economy, especially those whose rulers despised religion and worshiped science, enjoy death tolls in the millions."

That's because they did it wrong. I wouldn't want any technocracy that turned out that way. Remember, they still believed in the price system. Apples and oranges.

Quote :

"Really? In your technocratic society no one is ever going to order popcorn and find themselves without enough energy credits to afford it? Do you even remember what you say?"

I remember what I say. You do not. Under technocracy, people wouldn't find themselves without energy credits. They would be plenty for everyone. More critically, intentionally wasting resources to maintain incentives is inane under any system. I want a more intelligent design. Some form of technocracy appears to be the best option.

4/28/2008 2:24:07 PM

Quote :

"Last summer, Progress Energy decided to do more than just offer payment plans, spokesman Mike Hughes said. The company's customer service representatives learned in talking to customers that many had trouble prioritizing bills. For instance, some would pay their cable bill before their utility bill because Time Warner will disconnect if a bill is unpaid after 60 days. "It really doesn't do you a lot of good to have your cable TV without electricity," Hughes said."

5/20/2008 10:28:29 AM

^classic

5/20/2008 12:17:42 PM