Discrimination Of Economic Minorities Who Support Wealth Redistribution Or Welfare?

Please define economic minority.

 

Funny how today's hyper-lefties are so fond of classifying for the rest of us what "normal" is.

How can something be called warfare if the interaction is voluntary?

How can one "suck the money and life out of people" if all it takes to avoid such a thing is to refuse to work for less than you believe you're worth?

BTW: please name these multi-millionaires - or did you just construct a windmill to tilt?

Minimum wage is scarcely used in this society, and those who earn it have to be very incompetent to remain there.

Clearly, you're someone without either money, nor the ability to create a business to possibly employ anyone - because it takes more than money to decide to risk it.

It takes recognizing opportunities for a return on an investment, as well as recognizing when the risk is too high; the circumstances too uncertain.

Generalizing fantasy? Cites.

Here, the leftist gives up, and whines for his mommy. The rest of us figure out how to be marketable.

Funny how today's hyper-lefties are so fond of classifying for the rest of us what a REAL CONSERVATIVE is.

 

Could this be one of the reasons why?

http://arizonateaparty.ning.com/video/the-california-poster-girl

 

You seem to have a penchant for avoiding answers that have already been supplied to you.

I provided for you all the evidence that yo require. If poverty was the cause of crime, crime rates would have increased during the Great Depression.

They didn't.

Got anything else for us?



BTW: sure as I'm sitting here, if a poster has to explain that he's a registered Republican...

...he ain't.

 

When the government subsidises something you get more of it.

When you offer Welfare you are going to get more people on Welfare. If you increase Welfare benefits you are going to get more people on Welfare. The more you spend the more people you have on it. This holds true across the spectrum of government programs.

Aside from that it is entirely immoral to take from someone their hard earned money and give it to another who did not work for it.

 

When you make it to easy on people, you encourage them not to try and do better, as this does.


http://arizonateaparty.ning.com/vide...ia-poster-girl

 

You did not "provide all the evidence required" You berate a poster for attempting to tell others what normal is, then come right back to tell me what I require. I adressed what you supplied in the post you quoted me on just above, as it is the typical data invoked to attempt to discredit the obvious correlation between crime and poverty. Why dont you adress them instead of telling me whats required as I do believe I countered most of what is stated not just in the article you supplied, but the rest as well as they are duplicates of one another.

 

It would appear that your entire argument is based upon the idea that Welfare = less poverty when the opposite is in fact true.

Care to address that?

 

Incorrect. How do you explain the more unionized more protected and more 'socialised' workers of other countries which enjoy less poverty than the U.S. The common misconception is that the U.S gives so much more to their poor people when in fact it is documented as giving less than others. But never berate a philanthrapists charitible endeavors because that somehow makes poor people responsible and active and productive.

 

I would say that it is temporary at best. It is sacrificing the well being of an entire country for the short lived welfare of the few. A Welfare state is not economically sustainable. In every case in recorded history people have always asked for more and more which places an ever increasing strain on Government revenues and the system eventually collapses as Europe is seeing currently en masse.

To suggest that I am incorrect in my assessment is to ignore reality.

 

Did I miss where you cited this?

Did I miss where you cited this?

 

Not a problem. I have already adressed it many times before. I will adress it again. A strong social support network for the poor enhances capital output. By decreasing poverty, capital market participation is enlarged. government regulation, and even sponsorship of markets, can lead to superior economic outcomes, as evidenced in government sponsorship of the internet or basic securities regulation. One distinction with pure capitalism that poor/indigent individuals in the Tier-two economy will not respond to market demands because they are reliant on private or government supports. Another distinction is that social capitalism embraces careful market regulation as a necessity for economic stability.
Under Social-capitalist theory, the primary distinction between classes are not incomes or a poverty line. The distinction lies in an individuals independence from government/private controls. These controls may take the form of support or restraint by the government or charities. Examples: If an individual is dependent on private or government support for basic needs like housing or food, that person falls in Tier-Two. If an individual is dependent on government restraint through the criminal justice system or mental health system, that person also falls in Tier-Two. All Tier-Two individuals are defined by an active and ongoing relationship with government controls. They are not independent/productive members of the population. As such they are an economic liability.
The two-tier approach directly contrasts with the traditional three-part economic model associated with capitalist economies: Upper class, middle class, and lower class. The importance of the distinction is that Social-capitalist theory holds that social programs are not needed or positive for the upper and middle classes. Social capitalism holds that universal social programs are harmful to economies because these large programs shrink capital markets. Many European economies built on the universal socialism model suffer from market interference across the economy. High taxation for universal social programs shrinks the overall capital market thereby shrinking the functional economy.
Social capitalism holds that the Tier-One Economy operates independently of the Tier-Two economy in many ways. It is possible and prevalent for great wealth to be accumulated in the upper tier regardless of the size of the lower tier or changes in the lower tier. However, stronger social programs aimed at shrinking the size of the lower tier lead to even greater wealth in the upper tier. A survey of gross domestic product of countries around the world easily shows that shrinking the lower tier results in exponential benefits to the upper tier. It has less to do with fluctuations in size and scope of these programs as you might suggest. So long as the appropriate social programs are allowed to benefit tier two individuals then we can shrink the size and scope. More welfare does not kill welfare. You can compare it to putting gasoline on fire or whatever. Be certain however, less welfare, while that would constitute less welfare only through virtue of lower tax rates previously financed by the wealthy, will not equate to the sort of change you might wish or surmnise it to. It has been sought after to educate the poor people who are capable of working however without an increase in economic opportunity and technical innovation or entreprenuerial enlargement of employment opportunities, they may just end up being all dressed up with no place to go. We would have spent money to train them, and then have a glut in semi skilled workers as well. The idea that welfare recipients have a great deal more children is false, they typically average the same amount of children as middle class families. The idea that welfare recipients are more prone to drug use is false, recent study out of florida suggests the complete opposite. The idea that welfare creates laziness is false, there are just as many lazy people not recieving benefits. The focus on alleviating poverty and decreasing poverty level is not about how much welfare to give them, the social programs such as food assistance, subsidised housing and other welfare benefits should adjust accordingly to the social standards currently displayed by a country. Dont dress them up if there will be nowhere to go, do not shrink the scope of welfare if you are not going to offer an alternative. Other countries enjoy lower levels of poverty, "coincedentally" they also exhibit less crime.

 

America the Generous? Not According to the Media

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-w...ca-generous-not-according-media#ixzz1hlXpctY3


The media and liberals tend to portray Americans as selfish Scrooges, only interested in their own gain - why else would taxes be unpopular? But America has shown its generosity time and again, and this Christmas season, new proof of it has emerged. A report from the Charities Aid Foundation America, the World Giving Index 2011, finds that the United States is the most generous country in the world.

The World Giving Index 2011 measures generosity on three levels: giving money as a percentage of income, giving time, and helping strangers. Only the United States ranked in the top 10 nations of the world in each category. Charities Aid Foundation director Richard Harrison praised American charitable giving: "This research confirms that when we look at giving in a rounded way, including the extent to which we volunteer and help strangers, America is the most generous country in the world. America is the only country that ranks in the top ten globally on each of these three perspectives, and this first place ranking should be seen as source of real pride for people across America."

But American generosity is rarely acknowledged by the media. Instead, America is usually attacked by the media as not being generous enough, and American donations of time, money, and effort to countries are ignored or even scorned by liberal journalists.

On May 22, 2011, former New York Times economic reporter Eduardo Porter complained in a New York Times editorial that America was the "least generous" of industrial nations - by which he meant Americans were not being taxed enough to fund extensive government social programs. The networks refused to cover the extensive contributions of private faith-based charities when a tsunami devastated Japan in March 2011, and similarly ignored coverage of corporate donations when a destructive earthquake struck Haiti in Jan 2010.

This is because for the mainstream media, government social programs, fueled by taxation, are the only form of effective charity. At times, the media has even attacked private charity, because money given to private charity is not given to government programs. (This attack on private charity might be rooted in the fact that conservatives tend to be far more generous with their time and money than liberals.)

The New York Times' Stephanie Strom bizarrely blasted private charity in 2007 because it took money away from the government, declaring that "The rich are giving more to charity than ever, but people like Mr. Broad are not the only ones footing the bill for such generosity. For every three dollars they give away, the federal government typically gives up a dollar or more in tax revenue, because of the charitable tax deduction and by not collecting estate taxes."

In Nov. 2010, the Washington Post's Ezra Klein advocated giving to politically active think tanks as more effective than traditional gifts to charity.

Apparently, the "forced charity" of government social programs, fueled by higher taxes, is the only worthwhile form of charity, according to liberals. This is one explanation for the consistent media gripe that Americans are not generous, despite the mountain of evidence that suggests otherwise.


Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-w...ca-generous-not-according-media#ixzz1hlXYt5ak

 

heres just a few.

http://www.epi.org/page/-/old/books/swa2004/news/swafacts_international.pdf


here goes the wikipedia article about the welfare state and the various models, might be useful to you. It wont bother me any if you skip this one though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

If you are a fat person you might not like this one.

http://myweb.dal.ca/osberg/classifi...tent of child obesity/childobesityobr_217.pdf

Heres one about healthcare and comparisons. Keep in mind, most developed countires have universal healthcare, Norway, being what everyone considers a socialist model, enjoys a very impressive life expectancy as do others despite right wing zealots threats pertaining to rationed care.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-healthcare.htm


Heres a few that examine child poverty as slightly increasing in Norway despite a great gain in personal wealth per capita and over decreases in poverty. Its fair as it does not exclude the cons while merely focusing on the pros, however in the U.S still pales in contrast when they produce the comparisons.

http://internationalbusiness.wikia.com/wiki/ Norway_Poverty http://www.conferenceboard.ca/HCP/Details/society/child-poverty.aspx

http://www.colorado.edu/journals/cye/13_2/RainwaterSmeedingPaper/DoingPoorly.htm

What, that charity makes poor people responsible? I cant back that up, it was sarcasm.

 

I didnt read all of the post as I gathered from the first two sentences where it was going. For the record, I never said americans were not charitable. American is the most charitable nation in the world.

 

Might I suggest some music?


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgVOR28iG_o"]Sly and the Family Stone - Everyday People - YouTube[/ame]

 

Do you think it's things like this that turns people off on the poor or welfare?


http://arizonateaparty.ning.com/video/the-california-poster-girl

 

For those who are the "Economic Minority" or those Braindead Liberals Who Support Wealth Redistribution Or Welfare there is one conclusion:

The "Economic Minority" which is legitimately so because of physical handicaps, or the crazies, and to an overwhelming extent the "imaginary physical handicapped & crazies" are duly taken care of by our Govtal Social Services to the point where it is really a F-ing (F for Fig) joke.

All the rest of the "Economic Minority" are PARASITES......and the Liberal Idiots who preach about the plight of the PARASITES are PARASITE SUPPORTERS who are bleeding our Country dry with their CRAP.

 

Yes, I do.

 

This pathetic post isnt even worthy of any sort of dignified response. Do you know what minority means? Place it in terms of economics then adjust your post so you understand who you are speaking about.

 

HA HA welcome to the Bronx. You are right.on.the.money. My dad used to say they would park the squad car next to the project buildings when they knew the welfare inspector was going around. Once he went into a building you would see all the men climbing out of the fire escapes! He said it happened ever time they were there, like clock work.

Amazing what we have created, isn't it?

 

This was really hard to read and hurt my eyes. Paragraph's people!!!

Anywho this was a whole lot of rambling on about nothing other than the standard "We need to help people so that they will not be driven to crime" nonsense.

Please watch this video starting a about 3 minutes.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HhsWHfGRIA"]Hayek on Moral Values & Altruism - YouTube[/ame]

 

the republicans created that system, they wouldn't have to scheme if they got sufficient social help from democrats

 

I apologize that you experienced difficulty reading, its probably why you posted this...

It most certainly was not, and since you are so quick to call it nonsense, you should experience no difficulty proving it wrong. The problem is that I have already offered logical counters to the typical arguments suggesting no correlation between crime and poverty. Since you, or anyone has failed to adress them and simply label them nonsense like you have, it logically follows you having nothing in the way of a reasonable rebuttle to proffer. If it was the "standard help the poor nonsense" as you suggested was expedient, how about checking out the several links I have provided comparing several different aspects of the heavily unionized Norway to that of the U.S? The U.S has the highest child poverty rate in the world. There are several other shocking statistics which open up any compassionate persons eyes to what is commonly referred to as the richest nation ever. If what I submitted was the "standard help the poor nonsense" why is it what I have submitted is the fundamental parameters which is obviously helping elsewhere. Why? Because it is not, its just much easier for some to lable something nonsense instead of engaging in material they have probably never witnessed before. Its so much more attractive to partake in the "right vs left" paradigm that people love so much.

So you will label me liberal or progressive because I suggest a difference in opinion when I have never supported extending welfare or enlarging the scope. Your knee jerk response to what you think I am (your percieved appropriate label for me) has you actying most irrational. If you want to seriously discuss poverty and alleviating social ills I will be happy to reciprocate in this noble venture, however if you just want to be a part of some meaningless political affiliation please take your ignoble ideals elsewhere as I am not interested in such antics.



PS-theres two paragraphs here for you. My hypnosis while typing sometimes has me forgetting to seperate them.

 

Yes, and now the US has a king. The experiment of the founders has failed, as they knew it would.