Elimination of Poverty, the Re-establishment of the Middle Class

cpwill · Jul 31, 2011

Dittohead not! said:
I can't help but wonder, are multimillionaires any happier than those who simply don't have to worry about paying the bills?

Of course, people who can't afford regular meals, can't go off to the mountains for the weekend, can't afford to pay the electric bill, aren't going to be very happy.

But, do we really need a big screen that is bigger than the brother in law has, a house the size of a Howard Johnson's, in a gated neighborhood, a private plane, a 60 foot yacht? Are people who have those things really happier? It is sounding more and more like "success" means having wealth beyond most people's wildest dreams.
What's wrong with just being comfortably well off?

What do we really need?

my bet would be, no.

what produces happiness? strong family. looking at achievement. the wealthy are happier? i dunno, are we happier than our ancestors who were poorer?

winston53660 · Jul 31, 2011

Dittohead not! said:
I can't help but wonder, are multimillionaires any happier than those who simply don't have to worry about paying the bills?

Of course, people who can't afford regular meals, can't go off to the mountains for the weekend, can't afford to pay the electric bill, aren't going to be very happy.

But, do we really need a big screen that is bigger than the brother in law has, a house the size of a Howard Johnson's, in a gated neighborhood, a private plane, a 60 foot yacht? Are people who have those things really happier? It is sounding more and more like "success" means having wealth beyond most people's wildest dreams.
What's wrong with just being comfortably well off?

What do we really need?

One of my parents neighbors about two three years ago blasted away his entire family. This is in the 11th wealthiest city in the nation here a million dollars might buy you a shack.

What if...? · Jul 31, 2011

Aunt Spiker said:
Haha.

But you know - it's not that big of a deal. It's like asking who has a bookshelf or owns a bed. TV's have been around for so long and are so common you can walk into any pawnshop and buy one for CHEAPO - that comes with a remote.

do you remember remote TVs and how much they usee to cost when they were new? Holy poo - our kid's game tv finally died when I was 25 years old - we bought one at a pawnshop for $15

They're no longer a top dollar item - and lately I've seen that flat-screens aren't top-dollar, either . . . readily available used as well.

Yeah, and if it hasn't been mentioned, there's repeated mention of "color" tvs. Haven't seen a black and white tv in YEARS. Even in thrift stores/garage sales, etc.

All of the "luxuries" listed could be purchased for under $100, total, by a thrifty individual. Cell phones? Seriously? Electricity for appliances, cable, cell phone service, less than a hundred a month. Maybe a bit more in summer for AC.

RENT is where the lions share goes. 25-30% right off the top. Right down the toilet. Paying the landlords mortgage. A "life tax" if you will, levied by the ownership class on the non-ownership class. (So that's ok)

OhIsee.Then · Jul 31, 2011

UtahBill said:
OF people I know and have known over the years, many willfully spend their money on too many trips to fast food stores, cases of beer and wine, cartons of smokes, a cell phone for every member of the family over 12, cable or satellite TV, internet, 2 NEW cars, the latest and greatest flat screen TV, myriad electronic gadgets that they don't need, etc.
They are consider poor by too many people, but not me. I have no pity for those who spend themselves poor.
We will never have completely equal opportunity, but we have many options that most qualify for.
Those who CAN'T, we should help, those who WON'T should have to go it alone.

Thank you for detailing your position. Except for the last 9 words of your post I 100% agree. I just asked my wife what percentage of our population matches your description of willful. She said 90%. I say 50%. So there is a big problem. You write “those who WON'T should have to go it alone.”, but I see a problem with this. When they go it alone they cause problems for me. They will be begging on the street like they do in Thailand. Their homes will be in disrepair. They will be driving dangerous cars w/o insurance. If we jail them they will cost me more in taxes to keep them there. We can go on with how having them around will screw things up. So our other choice is to send them away, but on what basis and to where? I still think forcing people to pay SS tax for a minimal retirement and help for some of “those who CAN’T” is a reasonable rational solution. SS does however need to have an account that is not loaned for other purposes. What it is owed can be paid back if we insist. Paying our SS taxes did not get in the way of our acuminating our wealth. If paying SS tax is getting in your way you are not doing things correctly. So, other than having a SS program, how do we get those who WON'T … to go it alone?

StillBallin75 · Jul 31, 2011

cpwill said:
my bet would be, no.

what produces happiness? strong family. looking at achievement. the wealthy are happier? i dunno, are we happier than our ancestors who were poorer?

Having more money/wealth/assets definitely takes away the stress that money-problems cause in lower-income households. But having too much money can be stressful too I suppose. While I do believe that happiness can be affected by the ownership of material goods, the things truly make an individual happy are the interpersonal relationships he or she has with friends and family (being care for, and caring for, others) and personal achievement and having a sense of purpose in life and success in one's endeavors.

Patrickt · Jul 31, 2011

cpwill said:
if you take the money spent on poverty reduction, and divide it by the number of poor people in this country, you have enough to raise each individual above the poverty line.

i submit that if we aren't seeing those kinds of results with that kind of spending, maybe we aren't doing it right....

Sorry, but if a program costing $2 trillion isn't working, the government's solution is to spend $4 trillion and see if it works. It never has but that's still what they do. Discontinue the program and try something else? You're crazy.

Patrickt · Jul 31, 2011

earthworm said:
36 responded with "disallow those in poverty from having children".
What kind of people do we have here ?
Tea baggers ?

The term is tea partiers or Tea Party members. And, no, what you have here are the control freaks, also known as liberals. You know, no Happy Meals, no goldfish, no birdfeeders, and no hope.

StillBallin75 · Jul 31, 2011

Patrickt said:
The term is tea partiers or Tea Party members. And, no, what you have here are the control freaks, also known as liberals. You know, no Happy Meals, no goldfish, no birdfeeders, and no hope.

i'm cool with goldfish.

Patrickt · Jul 31, 2011

Dittohead not! said:
OK, so I've been gone a while, and got a little behind on this thread. Skimming some of the posts, reading here and there, it appears that there are some people arguing that we actually have equality of opportunity.

The kid who grew up without a dad, mom on welfare, in the middle of gang territory, has the same opportunity as the one who grew up in a nuclear family with adequate resources to provide food, shelter, education, medical care, perhaps a little entertainment and some travel.

Surely, no one is arguing such a thing, are they?

I must be mistaken.

No, there is no equality of opportunity. Some people are born smart. Some are born stupid. Some are born healthy. Some are born sickly. Some are born handsome. Some are born ugly. No, they don't all have equal opportunity. But unlike what the liberals teach, they sure all have opportunity. I know people who were born millionaires and are broke. I know people who were born broke and are millionaires. I'm no millionaire but when my grandmother said, "Patrick, it's not your fault we're poor but it's sure you fault if you act poorly," she spoke the truth.

The liberals don't know how to make opportunities but they've learned how to make poor people. First, no intact family. Lie and tell the girls that the government can be a better partner than that guy. You know, "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Second, cater to the teachers' unions who pay you a bundle and let the poor kids go to hell. Make sure the leading cause of death for young black males is homicide, tell them constantly they can't get along without the government, and watch the hopelessness rot them. Lastly, make sure everyone lives well beyond their means. Hey, there never is a reckoning.

The liberals should be proud of themselves. I think it's evil to deny people hope.

StillBallin75 · Jul 31, 2011

Patrickt said:
No, there is no equality of opportunity. Some people are born smart. Some are born stupid. Some are born healthy. Some are born sickly. Some are born handsome. Some are born ugly. No, they don't all have equal opportunity. But unlike what the liberals teach, they sure all have opportunity. I know people who were born millionaires and are broke. I know people who were born broke and are millionaires. I'm no millionaire but when my grandmother said, "Patrick, it's not your fault we're poor but it's sure you fault if you act poorly," she spoke the truth.

The liberals don't know how to make opportunities but they've learned how to make poor people. First, no intact family. Lie and tell the girls they the government can be a better partner than that guy. You know, "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Second, cater to the teachers' unions who pay you a bundle and let the poor kids go to hell. Make sure the leading cause of death for young black males is homicide, tell them constantly they can't get along without the government, and watch the hopelessness rot them. Lastly, make sure everyone lives well beyond their means. Hey, there never is a reckoning.

The liberals should be proud of themselves.

1) Just because a relationship is same-sex doesn't mean it isn't "intact"

2) Is there any evidence to actually prove your point that a man you don't love is a better partner than a woman you do?

Patrickt · Jul 31, 2011

A multimillionaire told me I didn't have enough money to retire. I said I thought I did and he said, "I have a lot more than you do and I don't have enough."

"How much is enough, Brian?" He stood there a moment with glazed eyes and said, "Well, I'm not sure. But, I know I don't have enough."

So, folks, for you, how much is enough? A number. What's the number for you? When you think of a number, remember, no matter what, you have to pay your taxes.

Mach · Jul 31, 2011

There should always be poverty.

There are people who win the lottery, or make a hit record and make millions, who end up in poverty. What the hell do you think you're going to do to eliminate that...take their money and keep them from it, but say it's their money, so you can eliminate poverty? In what universe does that make sense?

It's a load of ****. You should, ethically, want freedom, and freedom maximized for everyone. The big challenge is just how to handle when those rights clash. It's never about poverty, because if someone is free to live on less than you arbitrarily decide the poverty level is, you have to ethically be in support of that. If a new-age hippie wants to live off roadkill and sleep in a tent, I think people have died to protect that right.

Dittohead not! · Jul 31, 2011

cpwill said:
my bet would be, no.

what produces happiness? strong family. looking at achievement. the wealthy are happier? i dunno, are we happier than our ancestors who were poorer?

Strong family and achievement. Exactly. Being able to look at your life with pride of accomplishment. Having people who love you that you can lean on, and that can lean on you. That is what makes us happy.

Of course, not having to worry about putting food on the table, and being able to pay our bills helps a lot, too, but having great wealth? That doesn't seem to help all that much. Look at Winston's example.

Whatever you might think of California's ex governor, he does have a sense of humor: "Money doesn't bring happiness. Last year, I had 48 million this year I have 50. I'm no happier."

LesGovt · Jul 31, 2011

Patrickt said:
A multimillionaire told me I didn't have enough money to retire. I said I thought I did and he said, "I have a lot more than you do and I don't have enough."

"How much is enough, Brian?" He stood there a moment with glazed eyes and said, "Well, I'm not sure. But, I know I don't have enough."

So, folks, for you, how much is enough? A number. What's the number for you? When you think of a number, remember, no matter what, you have to pay your taxes.

There are calculations that can be made that tell you what you should need for retirement. I used Excel to calculate what income I needed in today's dollars and calculated inflation for the future. Taxes were included as well as future big time expenses, such as cars. I then ran the calculations by my financial advisor and retired with the assuredness that I could do it. So far, so good.

As for a specific number, that would vary upon each individual's needs and wants.

OhIsee.Then · Jul 31, 2011

Patrickt said:
............... what you have here are the control freaks, also known as liberals.

Patrickt, my many observations in the non-political arena, esp. in business, the conservatives tended to be the control freaks and the liberals advocated simpler and less control. I think that the conservatives don’t like their control coming from the government, but approve of control that comes from church, synagogue, temple etc.

UtahBill · Jul 31, 2011

OhIsee.Then said:
Thank you for detailing your position. Except for the last 9 words of your post I 100% agree. I just asked my wife what percentage of our population matches your description of willful. She said 90%. I say 50%. So there is a big problem. You write “those who WON'T should have to go it alone.”, but I see a problem with this. When they go it alone they cause problems for me. They will be begging on the street like they do in Thailand. Their homes will be in disrepair. They will be driving dangerous cars w/o insurance. If we jail them they will cost me more in taxes to keep them there. We can go on with how having them around will screw things up. So our other choice is to send them away, but on what basis and to where? I still think forcing people to pay SS tax for a minimal retirement and help for some of “those who CAN’T” is a reasonable rational solution. SS does however need to have an account that is not loaned for other purposes. What it is owed can be paid back if we insist. Paying our SS taxes did not get in the way of our acuminating our wealth. If paying SS tax is getting in your way you are not doing things correctly. So, other than having a SS program, how do we get those who WON'T … to go it alone?

The poor have homes in disrepair? that implies ownership, and the poor don't own homes, they rent. The poor have cars?
I was raised poor, there was 1 old car that stayed home most of the time, Dad walked or biked to work. Mom didn't work, she might have gotten a job but wouldn't have kept it. Bad dispostion....
They raised 5 kids of their own then adopted another later on. Our house was 1 bath, 2 bedrooms until Dad added a third bedroom. Mom knew exactly how many items of clothing each of us had and it wasn't much. She had a washing machine, and a clothesline. It was that way til I was 13 and little brother, the youngest, was 10. Dad was 48 when he finally made enough to move us to a nicer area with 3 bedrooms and 1.5 bath, and a 2 car garage, and BRICK exterior! It was their first house that didn't look like it was ready to fall apart. But at the time all this was going on, we didn't know we were poor as most of our neighbors were in the same boat.
Now poor means not getting all the premium channels....being the last kid in your class to have his own phone and/or ipod.....
Sorry, the nation can't afford that kind of poor. When the poor have it that kind of standard of living, where is the incentive to become middle class?

OhIsee.Then · Jul 31, 2011

Patrickt said:
A multimillionaire told me I didn't have enough money to retire. I said I thought I did and he said, "I have a lot more than you do and I don't have enough."

"How much is enough, Brian?" He stood there a moment with glazed eyes and said, "Well, I'm not sure. But, I know I don't have enough."

So, folks, for you, how much is enough? A number. What's the number for you? When you think of a number, remember, no matter what, you have to pay your taxes.

My wife was the last one working. We sat down and calculated what we would need to do what we want, support our relatives and afford enough insurance etc. to retire. We discovered that we already had enough, actually quite a bit. She continued to work, consulting, until she could leave w/o causing them a problem, i.e. she finished the project. So, do we match your perception?

UtahBill · Jul 31, 2011

OhIsee.Then said:
My wife was the last one working. We sat down and calculated what we would need to do what we want, support our relatives and afford enough insurance etc. to retire. We discovered that we already had enough, actually quite a bit. She continued to work, consulting, until she could leave w/o causing them a problem, i.e. she finished the project. So, do we match your perception?

early retirement leads to sleeping late....and we love it. No more alarm clocks!!!

Lord Tammerlain · Jul 31, 2011

Patrickt said:
No, there is no equality of opportunity. Some people are born smart. Some are born stupid. Some are born healthy. Some are born sickly. Some are born handsome. Some are born ugly. No, they don't all have equal opportunity. But unlike what the liberals teach, they sure all have opportunity. I know people who were born millionaires and are broke. I know people who were born broke and are millionaires. I'm no millionaire but when my grandmother said, "Patrick, it's not your fault we're poor but it's sure you fault if you act poorly," she spoke the truth.

The liberals don't know how to make opportunities but they've learned how to make poor people.

Such bull. Conservatives would not spend a dime on public education of poor people, and education is the key for most to move out of being poor

First, no intact family. Lie and tell the girls that the government can be a better partner than that guy. You know, "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Second, cater to the teachers' unions who pay you a bundle and let the poor kids go to hell. Make sure the leading cause of death for young black males is homicide, tell them constantly they can't get along without the government, and watch the hopelessness rot them. Lastly, make sure everyone lives well beyond their means. Hey, there never is a reckoning.

The liberals should be proud of themselves. I think it's evil to deny people hope.

Quite true, which is why conservatism is such a faluire. It failed in Britain in the 1800's, it failed in British controlled Ireland during the Potato famine ( you know where charity would only encourage the poor more. Conservatism and its racism is the reason black people are in jail for drug related offenses at a far higher rate then whites, yet white people do alot of drugs (somebody has to be buying it). It is the convervative war on drugs that is the primary cause for african american families to be spilt apart, it is the conservative war on drugs that is the cause of the high homicide rate of young black males.

Conservatives love to live beyond their means, look at the conservative admins of Reagan and Bush. Massive debt increases. The Bush admin pushed and advocated taking on debt (along with Alan Greenspan) after 9/11

Conservatives should be proud,

They have destroyed the African american family
They will soon gut the education system, to ensure the poor remain poor
They want to eliminate social health care to ensure the sick remain sick or in debt for the rest of their lifes

Conservatives want the poor to remain poor so they can feel good about themselves. So they can smugly sit at home and say they are better then that family down the road. The idea that a poor person is not living in rat infested squalor is appalling to them. It means they are not poor enough, and they cant feel as smug as they want

OhIsee.Then · Jul 31, 2011

UtahBill said:
The poor have homes in disrepair? that implies ownership, and the poor don't own homes, they rent. The poor have cars?
I was raised poor, there was 1 old car that stayed home most of the time, Dad walked or biked to work. Mom didn't work, she might have gotten a job but wouldn't have kept it. Bad dispostion....
They raised 5 kids of their own then adopted another later on. Our house was 1 bath, 2 bedrooms until Dad added a third bedroom. Mom knew exactly how many items of clothing each of us had and it wasn't much. She had a washing machine, and a clothesline. It was that way til I was 13 and little brother, the youngest, was 10. Dad was 48 when he finally made enough to move us to a nicer area with 3 bedrooms and 1.5 bath, and a 2 car garage, and BRICK exterior! It was their first house that didn't look like it was ready to fall apart. But at the time all this was going on, we didn't know we were poor as most of our neighbors were in the same boat.
Now poor means not getting all the premium channels....being the last kid in your class to have his own phone and/or ipod.....
Sorry, the nation can't afford that kind of poor. When the poor have it that kind of standard of living, where is the incentive to become middle class?

My wife’s and my family match your experience from the 50’s and early 60’s. Now we have relatives, one 87 one 53 injured and unable to return to work in IT. They live in a house the 87 year old owns, worth about 100k since it needs to be gutted and rebuilt. A beat up 1986 Nissan PU with a hoist for their carts, I just repaired both. And, a 2000 Echo. Essentially no savings, we have given $5,000 about a year ago. They are getting health care, but the 53 year old is not getting enough to get a drug that works well. The Dr.’s are still trying to get him fixed. He’d be much happier working, but our guess it that he’ll be released if he returned since his insurance costs and the legal issues w/ being injured at work. They didn’t save. The 87 year old gets $700 an month for SS, the ‘families’ income. Not poor yet. The 87 year old is considering a reverse mortgage, but that will put the 53 year old on the street if he doesn’t recover in a few years.

OhIsee.Then · Jul 31, 2011

UtahBill said:
early retirement leads to sleeping late....and we love it. No more alarm clocks!!!

Yes! We set our own schedule and we are very busy.

UtahBill · Jul 31, 2011

OhIsee.Then said:
My wife’s and my family match your experience from the 50’s and early 60’s. Now we have relatives, one 87 one 53 injured and unable to return to work in IT. They live in a house the 87 year old owns, worth about 100k since it needs to be gutted and rebuilt. A beat up 1986 Nissan PU with a hoist for their carts, I just repaired both. And, a 2000 Echo. Essentially no savings, we have given $5,000 about a year ago. They are getting health care, but the 53 year old is not getting enough to get a drug that works well. The Dr.’s are still trying to get him fixed. He’d be much happier working, but our guess it that he’ll be released if he returned since his insurance costs and the legal issues w/ being injured at work. They didn’t save. The 87 year old gets $700 an month for SS, the ‘families’ income. Not poor yet. The 87 year old is considering a reverse mortgage, but that will put the 53 year old on the street if he doesn’t recover in a few years.

2 reasons my brother isn't on the street, he inherited the rundown house my dad "built", and the state won't take the house for nonpayment of taxes til he dies or otherwise leaves the place.
Some of us gamble and win, some gamble and lose, but the preferred method of getting a good retirement has little to do with gambling.

UtahBill · Jul 31, 2011

OhIsee.Then said:
Yes! We set our own schedule and we are very busy.

I'm guessing the business involves some grandkids...the reason we live in 2 states is 2 sets of grandkids....

cpwill · Jul 31, 2011

Lord Tammerlain said:
Such bull. Conservatives would not spend a dime on public education of poor people, and education is the key for most to move out of being poor

Quite true, which is why conservatism is such a faluire. It failed in Britain in the 1800's, it failed in British controlled Ireland during the Potato famine ( you know where charity would only encourage the poor more. Conservatism and its racism is the reason black people are in jail for drug related offenses at a far higher rate then whites, yet white people do alot of drugs (somebody has to be buying it). It is the convervative war on drugs that is the primary cause for african american families to be spilt apart, it is the conservative war on drugs that is the cause of the high homicide rate of young black males.

Conservatives love to live beyond their means, look at the conservative admins of Reagan and Bush. Massive debt increases. The Bush admin pushed and advocated taking on debt (along with Alan Greenspan) after 9/11

Conservatives should be proud,

They have destroyed the African american family
They will soon gut the education system, to ensure the poor remain poor
They want to eliminate social health care to ensure the sick remain sick or in debt for the rest of their lifes

Conservatives want the poor to remain poor so they can feel good about themselves. So they can smugly sit at home and say they are better then that family down the road. The idea that a poor person is not living in rat infested squalor is appalling to them. It means they are not poor enough, and they cant feel as smug as they want

i'm trying to decide if you are deliberately being as stupid as you sound and this is your saddest, worst post ever; or if you are being ironic.

StillBallin75 · Jul 31, 2011

cpwill said:
i'm trying to decide if you are deliberately being as stupid as you sound and this is your saddest, worst post ever; or if you are being ironic.

Tammerlain's usually pretty sharp. If he is being anything, I would venture to guess that he is being drunk. But ironic is a good guess too, considering patrick's post.

Elimination of Poverty, the Re-establishment of the Middle Class

How To Eliminate Poverty, Re-establish the Middle-Class? Check all you agree with

Government funded higher education just as other industrialized nations do

Cut out tax loopholes for the rich to benefit the lower and middle class

Start disallowing outsourcing to other countries for lower wages

Institute a flat tax

Disallow those in poverty to have children

This is not possible; we will always have poverty and no middle class

There should always be poverty

More options

cpwill

winston53660

What if...?

OhIsee.Then

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist

Patrickt

Patrickt

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist

Patrickt

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist

Patrickt

Mach

Dittohead not!

master political analyst

LesGovt

OhIsee.Then

UtahBill

OhIsee.Then

UtahBill

Lord Tammerlain

OhIsee.Then

OhIsee.Then

UtahBill

UtahBill

cpwill

StillBallin75

Salty Specialist