Why We’re Never Going To End Poverty

Over at the New York Times, Peter Edelman has written a utopian column called, Poverty in America: Why Can’t We End It? The piece starts out reasonably enough, but as it goes on, it veers into pure Marxian nonsense.

RONALD REAGAN famously said, “We fought a war on poverty and poverty won.” With 46 million Americans — 15 percent of the population — now counted as poor, it’s tempting to think he may have been right.

Look a little deeper and the temptation grows. The lowest percentage in poverty since we started counting was 11.1 percent in 1973. The rate climbed as high as 15.2 percent in 1983. In 2000, after a spurt of prosperity, it went back down to 11.3 percent, and yet 15 million more people are poor today.

At the same time, we have done a lot that works. From Social Security to food stamps to the earned-income tax credit and on and on, we have enacted programs that now keep 40 million people out of poverty. Poverty would be nearly double what it is now without these measures, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. To say that “poverty won” is like saying the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts failed because there is still pollution.

With all of that, why have we not achieved more? Four reasons: An astonishing number of people work at low-wage jobs. Plus, many more households are headed now by a single parent, making it difficult for them to earn a living income from the jobs that are typically available. The near disappearance of cash assistance for low-income mothers and children — i.e., welfare — in much of the country plays a contributing role, too. And persistent issues of race and gender mean higher poverty among minorities and families headed by single mothers.

…At least we have food stamps. They have been a powerful antirecession tool in the past five years, with the number of recipients rising to 46 million today from 26.3 million in 2007. By contrast, welfare has done little to counter the impact of the recession; although the number of people receiving cash assistance rose from 3.9 million to 4.5 million since 2007, many states actually reduced the size of their rolls and lowered benefits to those in greatest need.

Race and gender play an enormous part in determining poverty’s continuing course. Minorities are disproportionately poor: around 27 percent of African-Americans, Latinos and American Indians are poor, versus 10 percent of whites. Wealth disparities are even wider. At the same time, whites constitute the largest number among the poor. This is a fact that bears emphasis, since measures to raise income and provide work supports will help more whites than minorities. But we cannot ignore race and gender, both because they present particular challenges and because so much of the politics of poverty is grounded in those issues.

We know what we need to do — make the rich pay their fair share of running the country, raise the minimum wage, provide health care and a decent safety net, and the like. But realistically, the immediate challenge is keeping what we have. Representative Paul Ryan and his ideological peers would slash everything from Social Security to Medicare and on through the list, and would hand out more tax breaks to the people at the top. Robin Hood would turn over in his grave.

So, all we need to do is take from each according to his abilities and give unto each according to his needs until poverty is eliminated! That sounds like a splendid plan — except that’s already been tried in the Soviet Union (among many, many other places) and it has always failed miserably. It’s also worth noting that we already have a debt so large that we have no idea how we can pay it out and we’re on track to run trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. If somehow, some way, we could tax the rich enough to close that gap and pour huge new resources into the poor (which incidentally, we can’t), it would dramatically slow down economic growth. That would hurt EVERYBODY and it would also mean there would be less to pillage from the rich and give to the poor, which would make doing it self-defeating. The honest truth is that barring some sort of miraculous technological advance, we will never eliminate poverty in this country.

The country that has probably come closest to actually ending poverty in the real world is Singapore, which is a tiny nation that has a homogeneous, highly educated workforce. Out of wedlock birth is frowned upon; it has a very small social safety net and a Libertarian view of government and regulation. In other words, if Ayn Rand were running a country, it would be Singapore. Adopting that sort of economic system here would dramatically increase growth, which would reduce poverty, but our population would still be less educated and we’d have a lot more single mothers. In other words, it would be a step in the right direction, but there is no “fix” for poverty in this country. Moreover, encouraging more bad behavior by punishing the producers in our society and rewarding the non-producers is the last thing we need.

Wise people recognize that there’s a lot to be said for trying to improve people’s lot in life, but there’s nothing to be said for trying to create heaven on earth. There have always been poor people in this country and there always will be. The best way to help the poor isn’t encouraging dependency; it’s encouraging marriage along with keeping the growth rate high, which will create more jobs and allow as many poor Americans as possible to work their way out of poverty.

This entry was posted in Economics, Entitlements, Government, Liberal Nonsense, News, Spending and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to Why We’re Never Going To End Poverty

  1. Jill Klausen says:

    So, all we need to do is take from each according to his abilities and give unto each according to his needs until poverty is eliminated! That sounds like a splendid plan — except that’s already been tried in the Soviet Union (among many, many other places) and it has always failed miserably.

    No, that isn’t what the author suggests at all.

    I read a lot about this notion of “incentives” from folks in your circles, yet nothing about how the current tax code incentivizes hoarding to the already-top earners such that there’s no disincentive for them to steal the wealth of the working class by refusing to pay them a thriving wage.

    It is a sad commentary on our society’s mentality that in 2012 we would still have to use the tax code as a tool to prevent the powerful people who have wealth distribution completely under their control, from bludgeoning the overall economy with their unbridled greed. No, I’m not saying the rich are all greedy and the middle class and poor are angels. I’m saying that the rest of us don’t have the power to affect our nation’s economy with our individual greed, but the mega-rich can and do.

    Does this make them bad people? Of course not! They’re doing what wealthy people do: trying to make and keep as much money as they can.

    But here’s the thing: When they do that without respect to the people who rely on them for their livelihood, they have a direct impact on all of us, and that imposes a special burden on them to act more patriotically than most; to recognize the great responsibility they have to the country that gave them the resources to make their fortunes in the first place. That’s fundamentally American.

    Benjamin Franklin, one of our more revered Founding Fathers, said the following:

    25 Dec. 1783Writings 9:138

    The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People’s Money out of their Pockets, tho’ only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors’ Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell’d to pay by some Law.

    All Property, indeed, except the Savage’s temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

    I doubt you would be calling Mr. Franklin a Marxist, would you?

    • Gary Baker says:

      Ms. Klausen, you overlook a great many things in your dissertation. To begin with, you have yet to demonstrate that the wealthy are having any harmful affect on the economy. To the best of my knowledge, most of the people accused of trying to evade their lawful amount of taxes recently at high levels have been associated with Obama appointees.

      You are also very free with terms like “steak the wealth.” As near as I can tell, there is no evidence that they are “stealing” anything. Most people who enter employment do so willingly for the offered wage. I find the idea that you are in a better position to determine the value of a worker than both the employee and the employer both laughable and arrogant.

      And while I appreciate your reference to Mr. Franklin, a bit of context is always helpful. His words refer to those who did not pay their lawful tax as required, which again takes us to Obama appointees. At the time he wrote that, generally taxes and voting were restricted to land owners, who did have a very vested interest in maintaining services. The taxes now being advanced by the administration are to increase the already unfair burden that the top earners pay so that nearly 50% of the public pays no income tax whatsoever while still enjoying full rights and privileges. If you would care to advocate a similar voting system, perhaps we can discuss something.

      At any rates, most of the matters of taxation the Obama regime has raised are a class warfare distraction and nothing more. Even if they taxed the top earners at 100 percent of income, it wouldn’t cover the current deficit, much less the total budget. As for poverty, until people decide to do what it takes to not be poor, they will be poor. The rules for avoiding poverty are simple: Graduate from high school. Delay marriage until employment. Delay children until after marriage. Stay together. The poverty level for people who can live by those rules is extremely small. The poverty level for those who break all of them is ridiculously high. I see little moral argument for funding someone’s poor life choices beyond subsistence.

      • Jill Klausen says:

        Ms. Klausen, you overlook a great many things in your dissertation. To begin with, you have yet to demonstrate that the wealthy are having any harmful affect on the economy.

        I haven’t overlooked it, in fact I posted a long reply including several links in the previous thread. Unfortunately it’s still awaiting moderation, which I made a note to you about in that thread so you wouldn’t think I had avoided the question. I’ll include those links at the end of this post again and hope this time it posts.

        To the best of my knowledge, most of the people accused of trying to evade their lawful amount of taxes recently at high levels have been associated with Obama appointees.

        Can we not do this, please? I’m quite certain there are Democrats and Republicans alike who have avoided paying their lawful taxes. That’s not what this is about, it’s about how to allocate taxes in an effort to ameliorate the damaging disparity the current system creates. It’s not about individuals, it’s about the system, and it’s about which major party is actually attempting to do something that actually addresses it (the Democrats) and which party is fighting to keep the status quo that has created the bulk of this mess by siphoning off middle class wealth to those at the top (the Republicans).

        You are also very free with terms like “steal the wealth.” As near as I can tell, there is no evidence that they are “stealing” anything. Most people who enter employment do so willingly for the offered wage. I find the idea that you are in a better position to determine the value of a worker than both the employee and the employer both laughable and arrogant.

        Again, this isn’t about people on an individual level; it’s about macroeconomics and how the entire nation has suffered because wages on the whole have been kept stagnant across the board for more than 40 years … for everyone except the most senior executives and CEOs, that is.

        This is simple:

        From the 1930s, following The New Deal programs, workers’ compensation rose steadily along the same trajectory as their productivity all the way through the mid- to late-1960s. When corporate profits rose, workers’ wages rose right along with them. Workers’ labor was a respected element of the total picture of how a business became and remained profitable and they were paid accordingly.

        Then Nixon, and Reagan following him, started denigrating workers and their critical role in creating our nation’s wealth, 2,000 years of understanding of how demand is what creates the need for supply went flying out the window with (as Bush I called it) “voo-doo economics” as we were fed a line of nonsense about how employers needed to keep more of the profits at the top and not pay the workers with them so they could allegedly “create” more jobs with it, and people began resenting those who were fighting to keep the workers’ share of the profits THEY HELPED GENERATE in the workers’ pockets (aka Unions).

        So once the populace was convinced, and tax laws were changed to reflect this new upside down philosophy, this is what happened:

        1965 to 2012 CEO compensation went UP from 50 percent greater than workers’ wages to 325 percent greater than workers’ wages.

        1965 to 2012 workers’ compensation went up ZERO percent (by some accounts it actually FELL).

        So the very simple question is this: Do you honestly believe that the only people in the entire country, over the course of nearly HALF A CENTURY, who have “earned” higher pay have been the CEOs?

        Because if you answer honestly and accept that workers have earned increases in their wages over the years exactly as the CEOs have, but the CEOs who control the purse strings have kept those wages from them, then how else would you describe it other than theft?

        And while I appreciate your reference to Mr. Franklin, a bit of context is always helpful. His words refer to those who did not pay their lawful tax as required. At the time he wrote that, generally taxes and voting were restricted to land owners, who did have a very vested interest in maintaining services.

        Read the quote more carefully. While you are right to the extent you take it, you have overlooked the forest for the few trees you want to see. Franklin went much further than you claim, stating outright that because an individual’s wealth could only come into existence because of laws the government made that allowed it, every penny above the “survival” threshold actually belonged to the government! Seriously, dude! That’s what this means:

        All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition.

        You can’t see me right now, but even my eyes are bugging out! That’s an extremely radical position that would have had Marx doing somersaults in the streets! Even I wouldn’t go that far!

        The taxes now being advanced by the administration are to increase the already unfair burden that the top earners pay so that nearly 50% of the public pays no income tax whatsoever while still enjoying full rights and privileges. If you would care to advocate a similar voting system, perhaps we can discuss something.

        The burden on the top earners is the lowest it’s been since income taxes came into existence! The wealthiest people in this country pay a lower effective tax rate than middle class and low-income taxpayers who actually need every penny of their earnings for survival. And that’s not only absurd, it’s unAmerican!

        The fact is, we have had laws over the decades that were established in such a way as to keep this country on a more even keel economically, and keep the playing field fair for all the players. But what has happened—and is still happening—is one party—the Republicans—continually changing the law so that those who “don’t wish to pay their club” can get away without doing so “legally.” Taking this conversation down to the “legally-speaking” level misses the entire point: That Republicans are legislating the theft of workers’ rightful wages to continually funnel to the top 1 percent, and write more loopholes into the law that will “legally” allow them to send their money offshore so they don’t “legally” have to pay taxes on it.

        That’s unpatriotic, unAmerican, ungrateful, unproductive, and severely damaging to our economy.

        This meme about who pays or doesn’t pay federal income taxes is not only a straw man meant to gin up your hatred for those who have less than you (or I), but to trick you into looking … hey, OVER THERE!, Is that a rabbit with gold-plated ears? … the other direction while they pick your pocket.

        The number of people who are in the top 5 percent of earners is relatively small. But guess how many of them PAID ZERO INCOME TAXES in 2009?

        12,000.

        TWELVE THOUSAND of America’s wealthiest individuals had a net federal income tax burden of ZERO.

        Why isn’t Fox and Rush et al jumping up and down and screaming about them? They pay ZERO just like the low-income people who ONLY pay zero because they qualify for SURVIVAL credits. The mega rich pay ZERO because they qualify for loopholes that get them out of their responsibility of paying their (yes I’m going to say it) fair share of taxes for all the services they take advantage of in this country, too.

        Have you read Senator Tom Coburn’s (R-OK) scathing report: Subsidies of the Rich & Famous? You need to.

        http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=bb1c90bc-660c-477e-91e6-91c970fbee1f

        At any rates, most of the matters of taxation the Obama regime has raised are a class warfare distraction and nothing more.

        Okay, stop. There’s nothing of the sort going on here. The American people have finally gotten sick and tired of being taken advantage of by the few at the top with all the wealth and therefore all the power. Calling them on their bullshit is at its core, patriotic. AGAIN:

        “Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, the people alone have an incontestable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to institute government; and to reform, alter, or totally change the same, when their protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness require it.” ~ John Adams, Founding Father and 2nd President; Thoughts on Government, 1776

        We, the people, have a right to demand our representatives in government protect our interests as a whole and they have not been doing that. Worse yet, they’ve convinced good people like you that standing up to them is not only wrong, it’s “warfare.” Stop letting them get away with dividing us like that!

        Even if they taxed the top earners at 100 percent of income, it wouldn’t cover the current deficit, much less the total budget.

        That’s not what taxation is about. It’s about everyone participating fairly in the system that affords them enormous opportunity for success. The deficit is a completely different subject.

        As for poverty, until people decide to do what it takes to not be poor, they will be poor. The rules for avoiding poverty are simple: Graduate from high school. Delay marriage until employment. Delay children until after marriage. Stay together. The poverty level for people who can live by those rules is extremely small. The poverty level for those who break all of them is ridiculously high. I see little moral argument for funding someone’s poor life choices beyond subsistence.

        Good. G-d. I’ve really been trying to be reasonable with you and then you trot out this garbage. I’d ask for cites to support this poppycock, but I know they don’t exist, and any furtherance of a conversation about the “morality” of being poor would fall on deaf ears with you. I’m sorry for that, because I thought you were someone who might be able to see reason. I’m disappointed that I was wrong.

        Here are those promised links:

        25 Signs That Middle Class Families Are Being Wiped Out

        “The middle class in America is being systematically wiped out, and most people don’t even realize what is happening.

        “Every single year, millions more Americans fall out of the middle class and become dependent on the government. The United States once had the largest and most vibrant middle class in the history of the world, but now the middle class is rapidly shrinking and government dependence is at an all-time high.

        “So why is this happening? Well, America is becoming a poorer nation at the same time that wealth is becoming extremely concentrated at the very top.”

        Continue reading: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-17/news/31354389_1_middle-class-midwage-jobs-politicians-and-federal-bureaucrats#ixzz22GOuZrfb

        30 Statistics That Show The Middle Class Is Dying Right In Front Of Our Eyes

        “Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most vibrant middle class that the world has ever seen. Unfortunately, that is rapidly changing.

        “The statistics that you are about to read prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the U.S. middle class is dying right in front of our eyes as we enter 2012.

        “The decline of the middle class is not something that has happened all of a sudden. Rather, there has been a relentless grinding down of the middle class over the last several decades.”

        Continue reading: http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-01-03/home/30583284_1_middle-class-jobs-americans#ixzz22GPSflDv

        Joseph Stiglitz: The Middle Class Has Been Screwed Over The Last Decade

        Continue reading: http://www.businessinsider.com/joseph-stiglitz-why-the-rich-need-to-pay-more-taxes-2012-6#ixzz22GPqhXay (contains video)

        This Is How Income Inequality Destroys Societies

        “If you’re at the top, and you think that widening the wealth gap doesn’t affect you, let me put this gently: you are completely and totally wrong.

        “Richard Wilkinson, Professor Emeritus of Social Epidemiology at England’s University of Nottingham, recently did a TED Talk about what he found while researching his book about income inequality, The Spirit Level. You can check out his whole presentation here.

        “The basic thesis is that social ills, like crime and teen pregnancy, that have long been associated with poverty, actually have a stronger correlation with income inequality.

        “Worst of all, income inequality eats away at social mobility. In Wilkinson’s own words: “If Americans want to live the American dream, they should go to Denmark.”

        “This is information that’s easy to ignore, but once you see the charts, you’ll see it’s not easy to deny. Income inequality is crippling and dangerous to our country and every country. The good news is that it doesn’t matter how you close the wealth gap, through taxes, like Nordic countries, or by equalizing pre-tax income by increasing company democracy, like Japan.

        “All that matters is that you close it.

        Click here to see how inequality destroys societies: http://www.businessinsider.com/the-negative-effects-of-income-inequality-on-society-2011-11

        • Gary Baker says:

          Ms. Klausen, I appear to be frustrating you, and I do sincerely apologize. It is my intention to have a civil discourse as well. I believe that part of the problem is the wide range of topics we have mixed here. To that end, I am going to try working them one at a time in replies and see if that works a bit better. To start with, you comment:

          Can we not do this, please? I’m quite certain there are Democrats and Republicans alike who have avoided paying their lawful taxes.

          I often hear that said, seldom backed up. And I do think that appointing someone involved in tax evasion as Secretary of the Treasury is a bit over the top. Nevertheless, such sniping can be detrimental to civil discourse, and I am willing to play nice if you are. However, when you also make comments like:

          it’s about which major party is actually attempting to do something that actually addresses it (the Democrats) and which party is fighting to keep the status quo that has created the bulk of this mess by siphoning off middle class wealth to those at the top (the Republicans).

          You undermine your own case. A bit of legislative history: The original reason behind “prevailing wage” laws passed by Democrats was to keep white workers from having to compete with black workers. Having less education at the time, the only thing that black workers had to offer was lower price labor. The white workers, seeing that they could not compete with the price, got the legislature to pass the law so that African Americans could not underbid their labor cost. It worked like a champ, helping to keep poor blacks poor for years.

          Then, there is the Kennedy family, that championed higher inheritance taxes, but protected their family wealth in tax exempt trusts.

          But I think my favorite is Barney Frank, who ignored calls from both George Bush and John McCain to investigate and rein in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, several years before the failure, and actually protected them from investigation as his live in lover worked there.

          Now, do you want to play nice, or play blame?

          • Pineapple says:

            The best way to help the plight of the poor is to create jobs. The best way to stimulate the economy and create jobs is to slash taxes and regulations.

            This was demonstrated by the following five U.S. Presidents: Harding, Coolidge, Kennedy, Reagan, and George W. Bush.

            President Kennedy said:

            “Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government.”

            Under Reagan, the White House said lower tax rates will lead consumers to work more and businesses to expand, resulting in higher tax revenues and eventually closing the budget gap.

            From 1981 through 1989, the U.S. economy produced 17 million new jobs. Then in the 1990’s another 26 million jobs were added. (See “The End of Prosperity” by Dr. A. Laffer, et al.

            By the end of the Reagan years, the American economy was almost one-third larger than it was when the 1980’s began.

          • Gary Baker says:

            BTW – I checked out the link on “how inequality destroys societies.” The only thing missing was causation. It gives a lot of statistics showing that bad things are occurring for poor people in countries that have large scale inequality in income. It provides no evidence whatsoever that inequality causes these consequences, nor does it provide any evidence that lowering inequality would improve things.

    • Pineapple says:

      The best way to improve the plight of the poor is to CREATE JOBS.

  2. GameGenie says:

    Karl Marx: 1818-1883
    Benjamin Franklin: 1706-1790

    That is why Benjamin Franklin was not a Marxist. Hopefully you do not also believe, as Mr Edelmen apparently does, that Robin Hood was a historical figure.

    If anyone else is interested in a substantive debate, you’ll find that Mr Edelman’s muse appears to be the Ryan budget. It’s a pity Edelman was only inspired enough to spew platitudes and not a… oh yeah, alternative.

    Oh well, so much for a substantive debate…

  3. Robert Hauser says:

    The so called “great American free enterprise system” from what i have seen and experienced of it in my life, can be very accurately characterized in seven ruthlessly and bluntly honest words:
    Hurray for me and fuck everybody else

    Back in 1936, one of America’s most gifted writers and essayists, Lawrence Dennis, penned a thesis entitled THE COMING FASCISM IN AMERICA, wherein he pretty much likened America to a marble balanced on the edge of a razorblade…now I don’t know about any of you but I doubt very seriously any of you who are reaqding this would be able to keep a marble like that for even half a second….any event, his idea was that America would fall to either communism or to fascism…and may I point out that the Fascisti of Italy succeeded in three and one half years in completely driving not only communist terrorists out of the country but Cosa Nostra rats as well…and fascism was immensely popular with the working people of Italy and NO, it did not mean the confiscation of private property or your precious “capital”—-Benito Mussolini had been raised in the most abject grinding poverty and was entirely a working man’s leader having seen early on in his life the sheer blinding hypocrisy of socialism. He also had sense enough to know that a nation’s single greatest resource is a healthy, well fed and motivated working class with a personal pride and feeling of self-worth. none of you will ever live to see that in this country or anything like it. He, along with Hitler, who was also fighting communism in the streets of Munich, also knew that hope of tangible reward in terms of material goods and services, was the single greatest motivating force for a nation’s working people to make their creative, inventive and productive juices flow.
    You people bandy the term “capitalism” around so damned much without knowing what in the Hell you are talking about—”capital” is nothing more than tangible goods and services or the instruments of trade or barter by which they are procured. The right to own private property and derive full use and benefit therefrom is considered to be one of the the Absolute Rights of all mankind and has been so recognized by tribunals going back past the Sumerians and it has carried right up until this day. In any excuse for a civilized society, one has the right to possess capital or private property—-but it has never been held by any sane or sober jurist that the right to own capital entitles one to amass and horde same to the detriment of an entire nation—-to suck the life’s blood from a country, impoverish its people and sodomize a nation bow-legged of its rights under the CommonLaw…yet that is precisely what Wall Street has done. …and you self-styled “right wingers” and “conservatives” (what have you been “conserving” all these years of your lives anyway?…hydrogen sulfide and methane?) don’t seem to mind this a bit do you? It’s perfectly ok with you that this country has been unceremoniously trashed by an oligarchy of financial parasites on Wall Street who gamble with OUR money and then pocket the winnings (privatize the wealth) while sticking it to us for bailouts when they screw up and lose (socializing their debts) —after all, we all should be jubilant about getting ourselves shafted by a bunch of ethnic parasite banksters because after all…that is part of the “great American (NOT) free enterprise system” now isn’t it?

    Redistributing the wealth per the rantings of Mordechai Levi aka “Karl Marx” is of course pathologically absurd as its author. It has been observed that if all of the wealth of this earth were distributed equally among all people, we’d all starve to death were it not for the fact that within about three days it all be right back where it started anyway. The so called “left” advocates “redistribution of the wealth” but for some reason that has never seemed to apply to the stink rich…no, it is always wrested from the most productive people of a nation—its middle class, and given to the dirt poor by profession. I will say right now that were it not for trade unions, there would be no middle class in America and the one we might still have is damned near extinct.

    So a very deadly pox on both your houses—you are BOTH the problem and I for one have solemnly had it to here with this god damned mongoloid idiot “left” versus “right” bat crap as you are both somnambulant unto oblivion. We need to rid ourselves with extreme prejudice of the stink rich financial parasites who produce absolutely NOTHING yet take everything (leolom tekach) while expecting us working people to do everything yet ask nothing while we pay ALL of the taxes to bail their rotten and sorry asses out. And NO…in flat contradiction to the raving mythology of the “right”, they are not “job creators—that is absolute bravo sierra.

  4. Greg Patrick says:

    I wish we could end poverty. Not everybody can be trained or be educated. In Singapore, I read they will help even the disabled get a good paying job. Prices are also a lot lower in Singapore from my understanding. What happen with Social Security, the government shouldn’t have borrowed from it (Both parties). Also, Social Security and SSI didn’t increase when cost of products have gone up. You can still have a Job loss after your married and going into poverty even with savings. I have friends that are low income. I personal belief Groceries cost two much.

    What I would like to know is how Romney-Ryan going to help the low income seniors & disabled get out of poverty-no double talk please.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>