Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

The "system" that is making the poor, poorer in America

24

Comments

  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183

    Wild guess, that 60k number includes debt.

    Thank you to all the conservatives making a great case for welfare. Poor people don’t have it that bad in America because welfare lifts them out of poverty. Great point. Let’s make sure all poor people have access to it.

    Great, so can you concede that the "system" doesn't make poor people poorer and nobody is getting rich in this country stealing poor people's money?
  • USMChawk
    USMChawk Member Posts: 1,800
    2001400ex said:

    USMChawk said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:
    Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.

    See you can provide a link. It's an opinion article in the politics section. That being said. I still disagree that the average person making $25k spends $60k. That's not even close to reality. They spend more than they make, but no way it's $60k.
    Yet that number was reported by the poor themselves.

    The fact is, when the very same households that the federal government considers to be poor are questioned, they report roughly $2.40 in spending for every $1 of income that Census says they have. So that family of four earning $25,000 is likely consuming as much as $60,000 a year in goods and services.

    If you click on the source material for that article (linked below) you’ll see a great analysis of how the poverty line is determined by income level, only, and does not account for the increased welfare benefits. That is the entire argument about an income level based poverty line vs a consumption based poverty line. The latter accounts for the social benefits they receive as is a truer indicator of their overall situation.

    https://www.aei.org/publication/annual-report-on-us-consumption-poverty-2017/
    That is worthwhile discussion. You are much better about this than Bob. I'll look through this link later this evening. I browsed it but don't have time to roll through it.
    You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link, yes? All I did was summarize it for you.
  • USMChawk
    USMChawk Member Posts: 1,800

    Wild guess, that 60k number includes debt.

    Thank you to all the conservatives making a great case for welfare. Poor people don’t have it that bad in America because welfare lifts them out of poverty. Great point. Let’s make sure all poor people have access to it.

    So it’s ok to lift someone from $25k/year to $60k/year (consumption equivalent)? What about all the families making $26-$59k/year who don’t qualify for aid? Seems like they have incentive to cut back their hours and jump ahead on the tax payer dime.
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    USMChawk said:

    2001400ex said:

    USMChawk said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:
    Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.

    See you can provide a link. It's an opinion article in the politics section. That being said. I still disagree that the average person making $25k spends $60k. That's not even close to reality. They spend more than they make, but no way it's $60k.
    Yet that number was reported by the poor themselves.

    The fact is, when the very same households that the federal government considers to be poor are questioned, they report roughly $2.40 in spending for every $1 of income that Census says they have. So that family of four earning $25,000 is likely consuming as much as $60,000 a year in goods and services.

    If you click on the source material for that article (linked below) you’ll see a great analysis of how the poverty line is determined by income level, only, and does not account for the increased welfare benefits. That is the entire argument about an income level based poverty line vs a consumption based poverty line. The latter accounts for the social benefits they receive as is a truer indicator of their overall situation.

    https://www.aei.org/publication/annual-report-on-us-consumption-poverty-2017/
    That is worthwhile discussion. You are much better about this than Bob. I'll look through this link later this evening. I browsed it but don't have time to roll through it.
    You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link, yes? All I did was summarize it for you.
    I do realize that. You actually put the link there while Bob just flails around.
  • USMChawk
    USMChawk Member Posts: 1,800
    2001400ex said:

    USMChawk said:

    2001400ex said:

    USMChawk said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:
    Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.

    See you can provide a link. It's an opinion article in the politics section. That being said. I still disagree that the average person making $25k spends $60k. That's not even close to reality. They spend more than they make, but no way it's $60k.
    Yet that number was reported by the poor themselves.

    The fact is, when the very same households that the federal government considers to be poor are questioned, they report roughly $2.40 in spending for every $1 of income that Census says they have. So that family of four earning $25,000 is likely consuming as much as $60,000 a year in goods and services.

    If you click on the source material for that article (linked below) you’ll see a great analysis of how the poverty line is determined by income level, only, and does not account for the increased welfare benefits. That is the entire argument about an income level based poverty line vs a consumption based poverty line. The latter accounts for the social benefits they receive as is a truer indicator of their overall situation.

    https://www.aei.org/publication/annual-report-on-us-consumption-poverty-2017/
    That is worthwhile discussion. You are much better about this than Bob. I'll look through this link later this evening. I browsed it but don't have time to roll through it.
    You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link, yes? All I did was summarize it for you.
    I do realize that. You actually put the link there while Bob just flails around.
    Ok, let’s try this again. You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link?
  • UW_Doog_Bot
    UW_Doog_Bot Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 18,186 Founders Club
    USMChawk said:

    Wild guess, that 60k number includes debt.

    Thank you to all the conservatives making a great case for welfare. Poor people don’t have it that bad in America because welfare lifts them out of poverty. Great point. Let’s make sure all poor people have access to it.

    So it’s ok to lift someone from $25k/year to $60k/year (consumption equivalent)? What about all the families making $26-$59k/year who don’t qualify for aid? Seems like they have incentive to cut back their hours and jump ahead on the tax payer dime.
    Poorest I've ever been was making about $40k a year out of college and single. I lived in a neighborhood where working the system was the norm and it was eye opening to a lot of issues to say the least.


    Just one common example. There are plenty of others.
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    USMChawk said:

    2001400ex said:

    USMChawk said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:
    Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.

    See you can provide a link. It's an opinion article in the politics section. That being said. I still disagree that the average person making $25k spends $60k. That's not even close to reality. They spend more than they make, but no way it's $60k.
    Yet that number was reported by the poor themselves.

    The fact is, when the very same households that the federal government considers to be poor are questioned, they report roughly $2.40 in spending for every $1 of income that Census says they have. So that family of four earning $25,000 is likely consuming as much as $60,000 a year in goods and services.

    If you click on the source material for that article (linked below) you’ll see a great analysis of how the poverty line is determined by income level, only, and does not account for the increased welfare benefits. That is the entire argument about an income level based poverty line vs a consumption based poverty line. The latter accounts for the social benefits they receive as is a truer indicator of their overall situation.

    https://www.aei.org/publication/annual-report-on-us-consumption-poverty-2017/
    That is worthwhile discussion. You are much better about this than Bob. I'll look through this link later this evening. I browsed it but don't have time to roll through it.
    You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link, yes? All I did was summarize it for you.
    You summarized the information that Hondo was too busy to read but which he already knew was wrong.
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    edited November 2018
    Weird how Hondo doesn't have time to read a link that was given to him yesterday but here is today posting again in other threads. Gosh Hondo if I didn't know any better I'd say you never had any real interest in the source of my numbers and that this entire little charade of yours where you demand a link was just you being a worthless Kunt.
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,861 Standard Supporter
    USMChawk said:

    2001400ex said:

    USMChawk said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:
    Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.

    See you can provide a link. It's an opinion article in the politics section. That being said. I still disagree that the average person making $25k spends $60k. That's not even close to reality. They spend more than they make, but no way it's $60k.
    Yet that number was reported by the poor themselves.

    The fact is, when the very same households that the federal government considers to be poor are questioned, they report roughly $2.40 in spending for every $1 of income that Census says they have. So that family of four earning $25,000 is likely consuming as much as $60,000 a year in goods and services.

    If you click on the source material for that article (linked below) you’ll see a great analysis of how the poverty line is determined by income level, only, and does not account for the increased welfare benefits. That is the entire argument about an income level based poverty line vs a consumption based poverty line. The latter accounts for the social benefits they receive as is a truer indicator of their overall situation.

    https://www.aei.org/publication/annual-report-on-us-consumption-poverty-2017/
    That is worthwhile discussion. You are much better about this than Bob. I'll look through this link later this evening. I browsed it but don't have time to roll through it.
    You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link, yes? All I did was summarize it for you.
    That many burgers on the grill?
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457

    USMChawk said:

    Wild guess, that 60k number includes debt.

    Thank you to all the conservatives making a great case for welfare. Poor people don’t have it that bad in America because welfare lifts them out of poverty. Great point. Let’s make sure all poor people have access to it.

    So it’s ok to lift someone from $25k/year to $60k/year (consumption equivalent)? What about all the families making $26-$59k/year who don’t qualify for aid? Seems like they have incentive to cut back their hours and jump ahead on the tax payer dime.
    Poorest I've ever been was making about $40k a year out of college and single. I lived in a neighborhood where working the system was the norm and it was eye opening to a lot of issues to say the least.


    Just one common example. There are plenty of others.
    Ok finally getting back to this discussion and I read through the links again. I do agree with the chart here. Again, I think a person making $25k living off $60k is exaggerated, yes some might be but not the average as purported in the article that Bob posted.

    This chart actually explains what I'm getting at. The system is designed to discourage making more money if you are under a certain income level. Because it takes a big increase to make up the difference. What is the result? A system where the poor are encouraged to stay poor. You can argue the definition of poor as others here have. Yes most "poor" people have a TV, cell phone, electricity, etc. But they also aren't building any wealth and don't really have availability to build wealth.

    BTW, I'm not saying this is a liberal or conservative issue. Policies from both parties have contributed to this system.
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    USMChawk said:

    2001400ex said:

    USMChawk said:

    2001400ex said:

    USMChawk said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:
    Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.

    See you can provide a link. It's an opinion article in the politics section. That being said. I still disagree that the average person making $25k spends $60k. That's not even close to reality. They spend more than they make, but no way it's $60k.
    Yet that number was reported by the poor themselves.

    The fact is, when the very same households that the federal government considers to be poor are questioned, they report roughly $2.40 in spending for every $1 of income that Census says they have. So that family of four earning $25,000 is likely consuming as much as $60,000 a year in goods and services.

    If you click on the source material for that article (linked below) you’ll see a great analysis of how the poverty line is determined by income level, only, and does not account for the increased welfare benefits. That is the entire argument about an income level based poverty line vs a consumption based poverty line. The latter accounts for the social benefits they receive as is a truer indicator of their overall situation.

    https://www.aei.org/publication/annual-report-on-us-consumption-poverty-2017/
    That is worthwhile discussion. You are much better about this than Bob. I'll look through this link later this evening. I browsed it but don't have time to roll through it.
    You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link, yes? All I did was summarize it for you.
    I do realize that. You actually put the link there while Bob just flails around.
    Ok, let’s try this again. You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link?
    Yes I understand that fully. But Bob choose to be an idiot rather than present information. I'm guessing it's because the actual discussion is over his head and he's just googling shit to try to prove me wrong.
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    The chart explains that you’re a lying dumbfuck?

    Oh and Mr. reading comprehension the numbers where never for an individual or a “person” they were always for a family of four. And your claim was that the “system” makes the poor poorer, not that they are “encouraged” to stay poor or that the don’t have the ability to build wealth you lying worthless piece of shit.

  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    2001400ex said:

    USMChawk said:

    2001400ex said:

    USMChawk said:

    2001400ex said:

    USMChawk said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:
    Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.

    See you can provide a link. It's an opinion article in the politics section. That being said. I still disagree that the average person making $25k spends $60k. That's not even close to reality. They spend more than they make, but no way it's $60k.
    Yet that number was reported by the poor themselves.

    The fact is, when the very same households that the federal government considers to be poor are questioned, they report roughly $2.40 in spending for every $1 of income that Census says they have. So that family of four earning $25,000 is likely consuming as much as $60,000 a year in goods and services.

    If you click on the source material for that article (linked below) you’ll see a great analysis of how the poverty line is determined by income level, only, and does not account for the increased welfare benefits. That is the entire argument about an income level based poverty line vs a consumption based poverty line. The latter accounts for the social benefits they receive as is a truer indicator of their overall situation.

    https://www.aei.org/publication/annual-report-on-us-consumption-poverty-2017/
    That is worthwhile discussion. You are much better about this than Bob. I'll look through this link later this evening. I browsed it but don't have time to roll through it.
    You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link, yes? All I did was summarize it for you.
    I do realize that. You actually put the link there while Bob just flails around.
    Ok, let’s try this again. You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link?
    Yes I understand that fully. But Bob choose to be an idiot rather than present information. I'm guessing it's because the actual discussion is over his head and he's just googling shit to try to prove me wrong.
    Other than the fact that I provided the information and then the link to back it up it almost like you’re nothing more than a lying Kunt Hondo.

    Let me guess you’re trolling me with you stupidity again. Time for some funny pictures Kunt, you’re about spent here.
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    So just to recap, a “system” that is designed to make the poor, poorer actually gives a family of four earning $25k a year the spending power of $60k a year.

    That’s one weird way of being made poorer but I’m sure Hondo has some off topic gibberish to explain it all.
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    All this retared thread aside....If you, as an individual, believe you are a victim of the “system” then fuck off. Go fucking be a poor piece of shit and spend your life blaming the nebulous “system” for your poor personal habits, low IQ, lack of ambition, and poor choices.
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,861 Standard Supporter
    Nothing says poor like a $1000.00 cell phone.
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,861 Standard Supporter

    Sledog said:

    Nothing says poor like a $1000.00 cell phone.

    And being 75 lbs overweight wearing PJs in line for a $6 ”coffee” at Starbucks.
    75 is a low estimate.
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 114,112 Founders Club
  • allpurpleallgold
    allpurpleallgold Member Posts: 8,771

    Wild guess, that 60k number includes debt.

    Thank you to all the conservatives making a great case for welfare. Poor people don’t have it that bad in America because welfare lifts them out of poverty. Great point. Let’s make sure all poor people have access to it.

    Welfare needs to be more efficient

    Kind of sucks now
    In theory I’d be on board with that. My concern is that you can hide behind “more efficient” when you really just want cuts.
  • allpurpleallgold
    allpurpleallgold Member Posts: 8,771
    SFGbob said:

    Wild guess, that 60k number includes debt.

    Thank you to all the conservatives making a great case for welfare. Poor people don’t have it that bad in America because welfare lifts them out of poverty. Great point. Let’s make sure all poor people have access to it.

    Great, so can you concede that the "system" doesn't make poor people poorer and nobody is getting rich in this country stealing poor people's money?
    No, I wouldn’t concede that. I don’t find the two points incompatible. In fact, I think you can make the argument that welfare benefits rich people. See, Walmart.
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,861 Standard Supporter

    Wild guess, that 60k number includes debt.

    Thank you to all the conservatives making a great case for welfare. Poor people don’t have it that bad in America because welfare lifts them out of poverty. Great point. Let’s make sure all poor people have access to it.

    Welfare needs to be more efficient

    Kind of sucks now
    In theory I’d be on board with that. My concern is that you can hide behind “more efficient” when you really just want cuts.
    Huge amount of fraud in welfare, section 8 and all the other programs uncle sugar has. Billions.
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 114,112 Founders Club

    Wild guess, that 60k number includes debt.

    Thank you to all the conservatives making a great case for welfare. Poor people don’t have it that bad in America because welfare lifts them out of poverty. Great point. Let’s make sure all poor people have access to it.

    Welfare needs to be more efficient

    Kind of sucks now
    In theory I’d be on board with that. My concern is that you can hide behind “more efficient” when you really just want cuts.
    Having been in touch with the system more recently than anyone here my motives are pure

    We could pay people more and probably get cuts too

    But we need to get more cash in the hands of people that need it
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781

    Wild guess, that 60k number includes debt.

    Thank you to all the conservatives making a great case for welfare. Poor people don’t have it that bad in America because welfare lifts them out of poverty. Great point. Let’s make sure all poor people have access to it.

    Welfare needs to be more efficient

    Kind of sucks now
    In theory I’d be on board with that. My concern is that you can hide behind “more efficient” when you really just want cuts.
    Having been in touch with the system more recently than anyone here my motives are pure

    We could pay people more and probably get cuts too

    But we need to get more cash in the hands of people that need it
    We?
  • RaceBannon
    RaceBannon Member, Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 114,112 Founders Club

    Wild guess, that 60k number includes debt.

    Thank you to all the conservatives making a great case for welfare. Poor people don’t have it that bad in America because welfare lifts them out of poverty. Great point. Let’s make sure all poor people have access to it.

    Welfare needs to be more efficient

    Kind of sucks now
    In theory I’d be on board with that. My concern is that you can hide behind “more efficient” when you really just want cuts.
    Having been in touch with the system more recently than anyone here my motives are pure

    We could pay people more and probably get cuts too

    But we need to get more cash in the hands of people that need it
    We?
    We're all Americans Mike
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    edited November 2018

    Wild guess, that 60k number includes debt.

    Thank you to all the conservatives making a great case for welfare. Poor people don’t have it that bad in America because welfare lifts them out of poverty. Great point. Let’s make sure all poor people have access to it.

    Welfare needs to be more efficient

    Kind of sucks now
    In theory I’d be on board with that. My concern is that you can hide behind “more efficient” when you really just want cuts.
    Having been in touch with the system more recently than anyone here my motives are pure

    We could pay people more and probably get cuts too

    But we need to get more cash in the hands of people that need it
    We?
    We're all Americans Mike
    But how do “we” pay people more? Are you upping your pay for workers tomorrow?
  • allpurpleallgold
    allpurpleallgold Member Posts: 8,771

    Wild guess, that 60k number includes debt.

    Thank you to all the conservatives making a great case for welfare. Poor people don’t have it that bad in America because welfare lifts them out of poverty. Great point. Let’s make sure all poor people have access to it.

    Welfare needs to be more efficient

    Kind of sucks now
    In theory I’d be on board with that. My concern is that you can hide behind “more efficient” when you really just want cuts.
    Having been in touch with the system more recently than anyone here my motives are pure

    We could pay people more and probably get cuts too

    But we need to get more cash in the hands of people that need it
    What about replacing welfare programs with universal basic income?
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183

    SFGbob said:

    Wild guess, that 60k number includes debt.

    Thank you to all the conservatives making a great case for welfare. Poor people don’t have it that bad in America because welfare lifts them out of poverty. Great point. Let’s make sure all poor people have access to it.

    Great, so can you concede that the "system" doesn't make poor people poorer and nobody is getting rich in this country stealing poor people's money?
    No, I wouldn’t concede that. I don’t find the two points incompatible. In fact, I think you can make the argument that welfare benefits rich people. See, Walmart.
    Go ahead, make the argument.
  • allpurpleallgold
    allpurpleallgold Member Posts: 8,771
    I said “see, Walmart”. You either don’t care enough to look it up yourself, in which case why would I waste my time? Or, and this is less likely, you think you’ve got a killer argument against it, probably some bullshit about how welfare increases wages magically, and you’re going to body slam me with it. The problem is I already know the arguments against it and don’t agree so this results in a standstill.
  • MikeDamone
    MikeDamone Member Posts: 37,781
    S

    Wild guess, that 60k number includes debt.

    Thank you to all the conservatives making a great case for welfare. Poor people don’t have it that bad in America because welfare lifts them out of poverty. Great point. Let’s make sure all poor people have access to it.

    Welfare needs to be more efficient

    Kind of sucks now
    In theory I’d be on board with that. My concern is that you can hide behind “more efficient” when you really just want cuts.
    Having been in touch with the system more recently than anyone here my motives are pure

    We could pay people more and probably get cuts too

    But we need to get more cash in the hands of people that need it
    What about replacing welfare programs with universal basic income?
    I think I’d be for that if it were an actual replacement. The truth is the government would fuck it up and have a UBI AND welfare. Abundance.