I agree with all of above and have seen it first hand. I've probably had over 100 subsidized tenants (sec 8, & other gov't & private subsidies) Maybe 10% really needed assistance as they were too old, mentally ill, or mentally or physically disabled to work. The rest were playing the system. And doing well at it.

They typical play is this: Momma and babies in a section 8 rental, getting SSI, foodstamps and other freebies to pay the way- the more kids, the better. Many times I've seen the baby daddy living at the house, unemployed, or dealing drugs. They can't be married otherwise the freebies go away.

There's really a sense of entitlement. I inherited one tenant- a Rastafarian lady who had 7 kid. The laziest person I've ever seen. The kids never went to school or had shoes. I asked her why her kids weren't in school and she replied "no one is PAYING me to send them to school". Uh yeah, so the sec 8, and the other checks you receive every month ain't payin' is it?

These kids are being taught to work the system and very few are getting out of it. Just hope they are too lazy to vote or we'll be in big trouble.

Great story. Truly inspirational. I notice that the government is picking up the tab for your education. This is EXACTLY how I like to see our tax dollars spent. The state of Wisconsin is helping someone who is making positive choices with his life. In return, Speedy will ultimately have a better job and pay more taxes that he ever would with a lower paying job.

My wife is from a rural Appalachian Ohio county with 16% unemployment. It's like crabs in a bucket trying to keep each other down there.

I would agree with you. However, I do not think it should cost any EXTRA than what we currently pay. I see NO reason anyone in America should have to pay more than 20% of their income to the government for these services.

If the current government would re-allocate the current wasted dollars, we would be able to fund all kinds of wonderful programs.

My main grip is the politicians continue to feather their own nest and raise taxes further to pay for these programs. Then taxes are raised and the money NEVER see its way to these programs. The taxes will again be mis-appropriated.

Therefore I can never, in good conscience, vote to raise taxes.

Someone sent me what I think could be a good idea. Depending on how far these ideas go and then coalesce into something meaningful, they suggested it be sent to all the candidates as well as media. Almost certainly it will be thrown in the cylindrical filing cabinet, but worth the effort. not much to lose. Pelican, of course, won't be referenced.

The answer:

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1191952505.jpg


Best,

Kurt :cool:

I've been out-of-town a few days, but I think it's time to respond.

I think poverty will always be with us. Having opportunities that are better than poverty are the best bet for keeping it at a minimum. (Like employment putting you in a better state than not working.) As it is a problem that can only be minimized, not eliminated, I look towards solutions that end up costing me, personally the least. I think that more/bigger/expanded programs are a waste of money, because once you are at the minimum (which I believe we are close to), nothing can make a difference. If anything, to get to the minimum, we need to make poverty a less attractive state to be in--I've never met someone who is below the poverty level who didn't own a car, have a roof over their head, and have cable television.

As Will Rogers said, " We'll hold the distinction of being the only Nation in the history of the world that ever went to the poor house in an automobile."

Do you mean poverty as in:

Only one car
No HDTV
a free cell phone, instead of a SmartPhone

Our definition of poverty is a joke.

That said, here's my plan:

Repeal the 16th and 17th amendments.

Repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913

Abolish the Federal Income Tax

Dismantle 90% of the Federal Government: Depts of Energy, Education, Commerce, EPA, and many, many more.

Permit the federal government only those powers explicitly granted in the Constitution.


Now good luck finding any Democrats or Republicans who will do any that! Both parties are the problem and not the solution.

What does all that have to do with poverty, you ask? Get the government off the backs of workers and entrepreneurs alike and permit people to enjoy the fruits of their labor without government thieves shaking us down every year.

On-ramp suggested banning credit cards. While the credit card itself does not make people poor, it is the devaluation of our money supply by the Federal Reserve that forces people to use credit to maintain their standard of living. Meanwhile, the banks tell everyone that it's good to use and maintain one's credit rating so you can get more and more and more....

People rarely use credit to "maintain" their standard of living. By nature, credit cards allow people to buy things that they do not have the money to buy. In essence, credit cards allow people to live beyond their means.

Credit card use is a personal responsibility matter. When they are paid off monthly, credit cards are not harmful. If you carry a balance, you're asking for trouble. The average American has a negative net worth, but it's greed and lack of saving to blame. Credit card abuse is just a symptom.

You forgot to mention term limits, which is the only way the debacle gets fixed. The FFs didn't envision professional pols.

Other than that, very solid:)

Come the the Dragon this November and I'll buy you a drink.

The world is imperfect. We will always have a responsibility to help those with less, but keeping the saftey net doesn't require government waste. The religious sector can do much of the work, but mental illness is perhaps best handled with my tax dollars with primary education a close second.

Cycles of poverty were created by our entitlements. Who knows what our true poverty rates are when the poverty cycles are broken.

In America, you might say, "Land of the rich- let's do away with the bell curve," but we do have some poverty.

Do the politics of poverty try to convince us that many sustaining a certain standard of life are actually in need of assistance? If so, is this because too great a contrast exists (subjective) to their betters, or is there an inability to relate to real Americans? A purely subjective "poor" class is not going to fly with the people. So, are the poor swept in with the faux poor?

And what about the families that should not be together in the first place.

Problem we have, and I have said it many times, is the wrong people are breeding like rabbits. Your bright college educated types have one or none, and the ignorant trailer park bunny is popping out a half dozen.

To really eliminate poverty, you would have to make this a place that would not resemble America much, and I would not like that.

And to put it in perspective: While we bat this about, Markus is juggling a few sub 1 kilogram babies who decided to come out for a look early because 7 months was as long as two were staying in there. You ever see a premie that small? Their little fingernails are perfect, but the fingers they are on are so small they make your pinkie look the same diameter as one of those big cans of Foster's beer when they are wrapped around it.

+1

don't forget to add Free Trade into the mix. "That thing got a hemi?" Sure does, Made in Mexico. I'd like to see a big metal "Made in Mexico" tag on every motor gleaming proudly when you open the hood.

That is Hecho en Mexico.

Wayne is right, the illegal situation depresses the wages, and raises costs in other areas. Greater demand for schools(illegals having lots of kids that are American citizens, when they leave they can take them with them) and filling up the ER's, more cars on the roads. You and I pay for it, and consequently get less for each tax dollar we give up.

IMO, the same applies to "outsourcing to India" in the IT field. I guess I'm also doing a job that "American's just won't do" according to GWB :(! And no, the quality is simply NOT there...much like crap made in China, but YMMV.

I agree. I propose we drastically increasing the (legal) immigration quota for those coming from Mexico and central America -- enough that illegal immigration slows to a crawl. Provide seasonal and permanent work visas to match the jobs out there. Now all those immigrants are documented and part of the system (minimum wage, taxes, etc..). Demand for both under the table illegal immigrants and the jobs they take will drop dramatically. Tax income and wages will recover, the economy will benefit.

Any takers?

First, we will ALWAYS have poverty. Even in a world of billionaires, the guy with $1,000,000 is the poor one. It's just the bell curve. So start by looking at the relative level of poverty in the part of the world you can affect. I had an Ethiopian cab driver tell me once that he came to the US because he "wanted to come to a country where even the poor people could be overweight."

Trying to identify a cause with the intent to eliminate or improve it to get to a solution is impossible, there are just too many. Random chance, some people are lazy, others not bright enough, too many hurdles in the way of their life (education, opportunity, etc..) so there is no real fix that could impact a large portion of the population.

Wayne, are most of these jobs the same quality (pay/benefits) as those that were lost overseas due to Free (wink) Trade?

In the short term, yes, in the long term, no. As the cost of production and manufacture rise due to increased labor cost, the increase will be passed on to consumers...those same consumers with increased wages. "Real" buying power is not a static measure.

How about we all work?
 

Capitalism!
The only thing that works, and the only thing that ever will.
Compassionate Capitalism!!!

Funny thing; the harder I work the luckier I get.

Now; who wants to work? That's the key here boys and girls; work!

Unemployment, employment, etc.; who gives a rats butt. How about having your own business and creating employment? We need more business minded people in our Countries; period. The rest of the Country lives off the business person.

Pick up a book and read all about it; the success principals are there for the taking! (or write a book, even better!)

Compassionate Capitalism; that's my answer.
If you can work, then go to work; no handouts, welfare, freebies or such. If you can't work; well enough, we're sorry about that and we'll all chip in to help, that's for sure! But the lazy takers need a kick in the butt!

100 years ago there were less than 5% of the population that enjoyed a pay cheque from the good 'ol Government. Today the figure is almost completely reversed; and definately less than 5% of the population own their own business! :eek:

Holy *****! And from a Ca. bsns owner too!!!

Farkin A Wayne!!!!!!!!!SmileWavy

The illegals also affect our ability to create good paying skilled or semi-skilled positions. I have a friend who owns a food automation company who's seen business drop off due to cheap illegal workers. Who wants to buy a million dollar automated production line, when you have cheap manual labor available?

Hmm, which is better, higher unemployment or illegal immigration? Seems like a bit of a trade off.

unfettered abortions,



written with a little tongue in cheek

I meant the reverse. If you eliminate cheap labor and replace them with higher wage laborers, then the cost of service/production rises. This cost is always passed on to the consumer. So, the lowest rung on the ladder is always in a tail chase.

We all consume, just at different rates according to our real wage.

Reminds me of a story. Sitting in doctor's lounge at hospital, few years into practice. Was talking to a friend, saying how fortunate I felt to have been accepted into the community, done well wtih growing list of clientele. This older doc, who I sort of knew vaguely spoke up from the next table.

"Have you ever noticed how people who work hard and treat people well always seem to get lucky?"

it is not a coincidence

but the discount for using illegal labor is not passed on to the consumer. bsns owners utilizing illegal labor are putting more money into their own pockets and not discounting prices.

i am convinced that this is not a question of booting the illegals and paying higher prices for everything but rather booting illegals and seeing bsns owners have a few less bucks in their pockets (ie going back to what profit margins used to be).

If prices will increase if/when illegals are booted and wages are hiked, then the savings IS already being passed back to the consumer. You never really miss it until it's gone. Companies don't cut their profit margins just because consumers think they make too much money. IF their costs increase, they will pass them along to the consumer unless there is just so much competition that they can't get away with it. Your personal outrage at their profits plays no role in the whole game.

That is terribly faulty logic.

How? Because you want to believe you're being gouged?

I'm a proud conservative and can report that about the only Democratic vote I ever cast was for Jesse Jackson in the 1988 Wisconsin presidential primary to try to spoil the Democratic field. I used to prosecute and found most of my clientel was supported by the Salvation Army.

But as I get older I care less and less that some people are getting something for nothing while I prosper by the fruits of my labor. I give money to people on the street, have always contributed to the Salvation Army, and contribute to Good Will, in addition to my church. You know why?

Because three thoughts keep popping into my mind. The foundation for onservative thought starts with the proposition that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. And that leads conservatives like me to believe in a Creator, which thus suggests an afterlife, and leads to the following beliefs: 1) That all humans will be judged in the next life for what they do here. So if the poor are stealing, they'll be dealt with by a higher power. I don't need to get my undies in a bunch about it. God will even the score in the end without my assistance. 2) I keep hearing a phrase someone said a long time ago that someone wrote down. It says something about giving food and clothing to the least among us is giving it to God. If I am right about belief number 1, above, I want to be judges as someon who gave freely and generously to God on earth. I certainly don't want to have to explain why I didn't think He was valuable enough of a member of society to merit my assistance 3) And finally, I have this whimsical thing about angels. Supposedly men have comforted angels unaware. Can you tell the difference between an angel and a homeless bum if he doesn't reveal himself? I don't think I can. It gives me pleasure to give homeless people a buck here andthere, wondering if I just assisted an angel. And if I just gave it to some old wino who's going to blow the money on drugs and loose women, that will be sorted out in the end too.

I'll be the extremist.

Put birth control in the municipal water supply and only give the antidote to family making above a designated household income.

Sounds harsh but by definition the more kids you have when you are on welfare the more money you rake in every month. Therefore there is a reason for the poor to out breed the wealthy.

Wow, I feel like Hitler making that statement. Sad but true. :(

Rick: In reality, any company will charge any price they feel the buying public will pony up. If the product is in short supply, the price will be very high. If the product is protected by patent (think medications) the price to the public (markup) will be astronomical. A friend of mine in the medical field showed me something a while back. The same medicine given out by a veterenarian was less than a dollar for two pills. At the drug store, the price is just under $9 for one dose. Go figure. Therefore, I am not a firm believer in the theory that kicking out illegals will automatically increase costs to producers. Making handouts to citizens more difficult, tying them to work being done (for example, if a person is only capable of a menial job, pay this person a menial salary with a relatively small stipend from the government to bring this individual up to a sustinance level rather than a 100% government maintenance). Using non-violent prisoners for some jobs seems to work well in some areas, in jobs ranging from furniture making to highway cleanup.

Then again, what do I know?