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
Comments
-
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?allpurpleallgold 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. -
You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link, yes? All I did was summarize it for you.2001400ex said:
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.USMChawk said:
Yet that number was reported by the poor themselves.2001400ex said:
Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.SFGbob said:
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.
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/ -
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.allpurpleallgold 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. -
I do realize that. You actually put the link there while Bob just flails around.USMChawk said:
You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link, yes? All I did was summarize it for you.2001400ex said:
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.USMChawk said:
Yet that number was reported by the poor themselves.2001400ex said:
Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.SFGbob said:
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.
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/ -
Ok, let’s try this again. You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link?2001400ex said:
I do realize that. You actually put the link there while Bob just flails around.USMChawk said:
You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link, yes? All I did was summarize it for you.2001400ex said:
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.USMChawk said:
Yet that number was reported by the poor themselves.2001400ex said:
Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.SFGbob said:
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.
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/ -
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.USMChawk said:
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.allpurpleallgold 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.
Just one common example. There are plenty of others.
-
You summarized the information that Hondo was too busy to read but which he already knew was wrong.USMChawk said:
You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link, yes? All I did was summarize it for you.2001400ex said:
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.USMChawk said:
Yet that number was reported by the poor themselves.2001400ex said:
Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.SFGbob said:
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.
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/ -
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.
-
That many burgers on the grill?USMChawk said:
You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link, yes? All I did was summarize it for you.2001400ex said:
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.USMChawk said:
Yet that number was reported by the poor themselves.2001400ex said:
Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.SFGbob said:
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.
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/ -
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.UW_Doog_Bot said:
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.USMChawk said:
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.allpurpleallgold 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.
Just one common example. There are plenty of others.
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. -
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.USMChawk said:
Ok, let’s try this again. You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link?2001400ex said:
I do realize that. You actually put the link there while Bob just flails around.USMChawk said:
You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link, yes? All I did was summarize it for you.2001400ex said:
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.USMChawk said:
Yet that number was reported by the poor themselves.2001400ex said:
Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.SFGbob said:
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.
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/ -
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.
-
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.2001400ex said:
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.USMChawk said:
Ok, let’s try this again. You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link?2001400ex said:
I do realize that. You actually put the link there while Bob just flails around.USMChawk said:
You get that all that information came from Bob’s original link, yes? All I did was summarize it for you.2001400ex said:
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.USMChawk said:
Yet that number was reported by the poor themselves.2001400ex said:
Ah this one. Yes I mean to get back to this.SFGbob said:
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.
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/
Let me guess you’re trolling me with you stupidity again. Time for some funny pictures Kunt, you’re about spent here. -
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. -
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.
-
Nothing says poor like a $1000.00 cell phone.
-
And being 75 lbs overweight wearing PJs in line for a $6 ”coffee” at Starbucks.Sledog said:Nothing says poor like a $1000.00 cell phone.
-
75 is a low estimate.MikeDamone said:
And being 75 lbs overweight wearing PJs in line for a $6 ”coffee” at Starbucks.Sledog said:Nothing says poor like a $1000.00 cell phone.
-
WTGWT
-
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.RaceBannon said:
Welfare needs to be more efficientallpurpleallgold 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.
Kind of sucks now -
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.SFGbob said:
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?allpurpleallgold 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. -
Huge amount of fraud in welfare, section 8 and all the other programs uncle sugar has. Billions.allpurpleallgold said:
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.RaceBannon said:
Welfare needs to be more efficientallpurpleallgold 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.
Kind of sucks now -
Having been in touch with the system more recently than anyone here my motives are pureallpurpleallgold said:
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.RaceBannon said:
Welfare needs to be more efficientallpurpleallgold 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.
Kind of sucks now
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 said:
Having been in touch with the system more recently than anyone here my motives are pureallpurpleallgold said:
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.RaceBannon said:
Welfare needs to be more efficientallpurpleallgold 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.
Kind of sucks now
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're all Americans MikeMikeDamone said:
We?RaceBannon said:
Having been in touch with the system more recently than anyone here my motives are pureallpurpleallgold said:
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.RaceBannon said:
Welfare needs to be more efficientallpurpleallgold 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.
Kind of sucks now
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 -
But how do “we” pay people more? Are you upping your pay for workers tomorrow?RaceBannon said:
We're all Americans MikeMikeDamone said:
We?RaceBannon said:
Having been in touch with the system more recently than anyone here my motives are pureallpurpleallgold said:
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.RaceBannon said:
Welfare needs to be more efficientallpurpleallgold 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.
Kind of sucks now
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?RaceBannon said:
Having been in touch with the system more recently than anyone here my motives are pureallpurpleallgold said:
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.RaceBannon said:
Welfare needs to be more efficientallpurpleallgold 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.
Kind of sucks now
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 -
Go ahead, make the argument.allpurpleallgold said:
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.SFGbob said:
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?allpurpleallgold 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. -
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.
-
S
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.allpurpleallgold said:
What about replacing welfare programs with universal basic income?RaceBannon said:
Having been in touch with the system more recently than anyone here my motives are pureallpurpleallgold said:
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.RaceBannon said:
Welfare needs to be more efficientallpurpleallgold 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.
Kind of sucks now
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
