Capitalism Has Failed—What Next?

[eccieuser9500]

Get back on topic.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Get back on topic.

What was so appealing about this video that you thought you should post it?

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

What was so appealing about this video that you thought you should post it?

he's convinced himself if he yells "SOCIALISM!" enough times, everyone else will too.


NOT

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

he's convinced himself if he yells "SOCIALISM!" enough times, everyone else will too.


NOT

Well Capitalism failed America. So I guess it's only fitting to replace it with something that has failed countless other countries. I suppose that makes sense to Liberals, lol.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

I agree that the efforts are costly and tedious. But that's my point about Capitalism and it's self interest goals.

I liked the joke C. Rock made about car makers. "They could make a car that last 50 years, but they won't. They can make a rocket that withstand 20,000 degree tempertures but they won't make a bumper that won't fall off an El Dorado".

I don't think capitalism has failed. You have wealth concentration and some income inequality. To eliminate poverty you need to raise the minimum wage to at least $10.00 per hour. If you did that, a person who works 40 hours per week would make $20,800 per year. That would put you above the poverty level which is a family of 4 that makes less than $16,000. A minimum wage of $7.50 which has not changed since 2009, worked 50 years ago. It's not working now. Some cities like Seattle have gone to a minimum wage of $15.00 per hour. Bank of America is going to that minimum as well for entry level positions.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

I liked the joke C. Rock made about car makers. "They could make a car that last 50 years, but they won't. They can make a rocket that withstand 20,000 degree tempertures but they won't make a bumper that won't fall off an El Dorado".

I don't think capitalism has failed. You have wealth concentration and some income inequality. To eliminate poverty you need to raise the minimum wage to at least $10.00 per hour. If you did that, a person who works 40 hours per week would make $20,800 per year. That would put you above the poverty level which is a family of 4 that makes less than $16,000. A minimum wage of $7.50 which has not changed since 2009, worked 50 years ago. It's not working now. Some cities like Seattle have gone to a minimum wage of $15.00 per hour. Bank of America is going to that minimum as well for entry level positions.

Your post is so much nonsense. The definition of poverty is arbitrary and political. And it's relative. J D Rockefeller considered J P Morgan "poor".

Odumbo redefined poverty so that he could give more government freebies to his minions.

Odumbo's Policies Redefine Poverty

2011

President Odumbo and the left claim they’re protecting the poor and downtrodden by opposing spending cuts.

It’s a key point in budget talks because anti-poverty spending is a huge part of the federal budget.

Big government relies on illusions. Claiming that stimulus spending would fix unemployment. Arguing that taxing the productive would create prosperity. And exaggerating the conditions of those who are labeled as “poor.”

So what is poverty? In America, poverty seldom means doing without.

A new Heritage Foundation study reminds us that America’s “poor” maintain a standard of living much of the world would envy. Typically, “poor” Americans have more living space than the average European. Plus air conditioning, cable TV, and computer games. They are well-fed, and report they are not hungry.

They usually have a refrigerator, stove plus microwave, washer and dryer, dishwasher, and cell phone. That’s the case in most households that our government defines as “in poverty.”

Most of America’s “poor” own a car. A third have two cars. And 43 percent own their homes.

By defining poverty so broadly, we drain resources that instead could be focused on those who truly are in dire straits. And we spend billions that could be cut from the budget instead.

Because we overdefine and oversubsidize “poverty,” the Census Bureau reports that we have 43 million poor people. To help them, we spend over $900 billion a year in federal and state dollars. Do the math. We spend more than $20,000 apiece for each person deemed poor. For a family of four, that’s $80,000. And it’s on top of what they may earn for themselves.

We spend it through over 70 means-tested programs that give cash, food, housing, medical care, and more. As the Census Bureau explains, “The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps).”

The new Heritage Foundation study (“Air Conditioning, Cable TV, and an Xbox: What Is Poverty in the United States Today?”) pulls these numbers together out of official reports from a variety of federal agencies into a coherent picture.

As Heritage authors Robert Rector and Rachel Sheffield conclude, “Most of the persons whom the government defines as ‘in poverty’ are not poor in any ordinary sense of the term.”

Because we define poverty in overly broad terms, the cost to taxpayers is increased and we lose focus on those who need or deserve help the most.

Just as welfare reform in the 1990s helped millions become self-sufficient while it saved taxpayer money, a new round of reform could do the same. But President Obama gutted those reforms as part of his stimulus legislation.

In addition Odumbo has boosted federal means-tested welfare spending by almost 50 percent and seeks to ratchet that spending even higher in the future.

Serious budget negotiations should aim to stop this growth and cut back the redundant and overly generous programs already in place. We could start with legislation such as the Welfare Reform Act of 2011 (introduced by Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio), which would create inflation-adjusted caps on means-tested welfare spending.

President Odumbo wants to take us in the opposite direction, changing the definitions of poverty so that more Americans are included. Whenever other Americans improve their standard of living, Odumbo wants the definition of poverty to broaden automatically.

Copying the futility of a dog chasing its tail, we could never eliminate poverty because government would keep moving the goal away from us.

It’s time for more realistic definitions of poverty in America, so we can take more realistic approaches to combating it. But to succeed, we must refute the myths about poverty in America.

Ernest Istook is a distinguished fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

(The Heritage Foundation)

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The definition of poverty is arbitrary and political.

Wrong! The definition of the "Federal Poverty Level" is not arbitrary it is a set number. If you think you are eligible to receive "Medicaid" which was signed into law by LBJ, your income can't be higher than a certain amount. For 2019 the federal poverty level for a family of 2 is $16,910. A family of 2 people must make less than $16,910 to be able to receive the Medicaid benefit. By the way Obama left office in Jan 2017. He had zero to do with the "Federal poverty level " numbers for 2019. You are the one that is posting nonsense with NOTHING to back up your nonsense.

https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/...rty-level.html

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Wrong! The definition of the "Federal Poverty Level" is not arbitrary it is a set number. If you think you are eligible to receive "Medicaid" which was signed into law by LBJ, your income can't be higher than a certain amount. For 2019 the federal poverty level for a family of 2 is $16,910. A family of 2 people must make less than $16,910 to be able to receive the Medicaid benefit. By the way Obama left office in Jan 2017. He had zero to do with the "Federal poverty level " numbers for 2019. You are the one that is posting nonsense with NOTHING to back up your nonsense.

https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/...rty-level.html

the impoverished have always been manipulated for the sake of politics. just ask any Demonrat.








BAHHAHAAAAAA

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

the impoverished have always been manipulated for the sake of politics. just ask any Demonrat.








BAHHAHAAAAAA

Who put in the EIC to help poor wage earners when they file their tax return? Ronald Reagan.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Wrong! The definition of the "Federal Poverty Level" is not arbitrary it is a set number. If you think you are eligible to receive "Medicaid" which was signed into law by LBJ, your income can't be higher than a certain amount. For 2019 the federal poverty level for a family of 2 is $16,910. A family of 2 people must make less than $16,910 to be able to receive the Medicaid benefit. By the way Obama left office in Jan 2017. He had zero to do with the "Federal poverty level " numbers for 2019. You are the one that is posting nonsense with NOTHING to back up your nonsense.

[URL]https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/longtermcare/federal-poverty-level.html[/URL]

It's a number set by fucking politicians, and Odumbo damn well changed it to advance his political agenda. Anyone who says differently is ignorant or lying.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Who put in the EIC to help poor wage earners when they file their tax return? Ronald Reagan.

which of the two of us is rich and doesn't give a fuck about the Earned Income Credit for poor people?

i'm guessing i'm the prosperous one.

poor people are poor because they are losers. Capitalism is their only hope to not be poor. but there is a catch. Capitalism always rewards those who work hard. Socialism always enslaves the poor. Never in history has Socialism ever lifted the masses out of poverty, rather it steals the money of those who earned it and squanders it on losers.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Wrong! The definition of the "Federal Poverty Level" is not arbitrary it is a set number... For 2019 the federal poverty level for a family of 2 is $16,910.

You misunderstood - IB didn't mean "arbitrary" in the sense of varying from one person to the next; he means arbitrary in terms of deciding what level to set for everyone.

How about if we set the poverty level based on GLOBAL statistics, rather than U.S. income data? That would put your above-mentioned family of 2 squarely in the top 10% of the world's earners. How can that be called living in "poverty"? Anyone earning more than $34,000 is part of the evil 1% - measured globally. Did you know almost half the world's population subsists on less than $2 a day?

So yes, the federal definition of "poverty level" is extremely arbitrary.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/attention...153806044.html

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

which of the two of us is rich and doesn't give a fuck about the Earned Income Credit for poor people?

i'm guessing i'm the prosperous one.

poor people are poor because they are losers. Capitalism is their only hope to not be poor. but there is a catch. Capitalism always rewards those who work hard. Socialism always enslaves the poor. Never in history has Socialism ever lifted the masses out of poverty, rather it steals the money of those who earned it and squanders it on losers.

We can compare W2's any time you want. I don't have trouble qualifying for rental apartments where the rent is $2,000 per month for a one bedroom and your monthly income has be 3X that amount.

There must be a lot of losers in Mississippi, the state with lowest income per capita in the USA. I have never proposed socialism for the USA. Are you okay when the Federal Government sends General Motors a subsidy every month? This is the subsidy that Trump tweeted that he would stop sending when GM announced plans to close a plant in Ohio. You don't seem to like it when the government give a subsidy to people.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by adav8s28

We can compare W2's any time you want. I don't have trouble qualifying for rental apartments where the rent is $2,000 per month for a one bedroom and your monthly income has be 3X that amount.

There must be a lot of losers in Mississippi, the state with lowest income per capita in the USA. I have never proposed socialism for the USA. Are you okay when the Federal Government sends General Motors a subsidy every month? This is the subsidy that Trump tweeted that he would stop sending when GM announced plans to close a plant in Ohio. You don't seem to like it when the government give a subsidy to people.

if you waste 2k on rent then you will never be well off. if you were really well off even in North CA you'd own a home.

i drove thru Mississippi once. i'd go around it next time.


BAHHHAHAAAAAAAA

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by lustylad

You misunderstood - IB didn't mean "arbitrary" in the sense of varying from one person to the next; he means arbitrary in terms of deciding what level to set for everyone.

How about if we set the poverty level based on GLOBAL statistics, rather than U.S. income data?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/attention...153806044.html

That level that you mentioned is based on a mathematical formula. They don't come up with the "federal poverty level" numbers randomly or throw darts at some chart of numbers. Let's just stick to the USA and it's income data. You ever see pictures of Mississippi, some parts of Mississippi is like a third world country. The point a few posts ago was the minimum wage of $7.50 or whatever it is, is too small. That is why you have people living in the streets or in shelters. The price of everything has gone up since 2009 except the minimum wage. Perhaps if a person can't find a job that pays $15 per hour they should move to Seattle, where $15 is the minimum wage. The Federal poverty numbers of 2019 has NOTHING to do with Obama. They get calculated every year.

https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/...rty-level.html