Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

that's the point Clete .In the days where horses were needed for transportation ,there was a need for blacksmiths . Now it is a specialty skill so workers who were black smiths moved on . You need a more recent example ? Draftsmen needed to learn cad and then computer skills . Life is not stagnant and if you are not always improving yourself you risk falling behind or out of the race .

---

You haven't answered the basic question what do you do with unneeded humans as we transition our economy? Obviously you cannot just discard them, ignore them, no matter how you denigrate them to facilitate such an attitude. Maybe a blacksmith can start loading wagons but in today's reality, people have to eat as they find ways to leverage there skills or non skills, or abilities and lets face it everyone will not, or cannot make such a change overnight, nor without assistance, some more than others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

How many blacksmith's do you know? Did they migrate to Amish country? You amaze me too, you cannot see what is happening, jobs exist because of population growth but that has to stop. When it does all the jobs will have been taken by machines and what will be left is a few button pushers on short time. We have developed a throwaway economy, cars are fashion objects, good for a few years before obsolescence takes over and they are replaced by something else. You have threeD printers so factories become obsolete, soon houses will be interchangeable so no need for new ones and then people will become obsolete, you already have half your population who have a questionable future

---

Very insightful. Capitalist see this too Clete, but as long as THEY make money who cares about the rest. The very notion of wealth and resource re-distribution sends shivers up their spine.

Quote:

---

You haven't answered the basic question what do you do with unneeded humans as we transition our economy? Obviously you cannot just discard them, ignore them, no matter how you denigrate them to facilitate such an attitude. Maybe a blacksmith can start loading wagons but in today's reality, people have to eat as they find ways to leverage there skills or non skills, or abilities and lets face it everyone will not, or cannot make such a change overnight, nor without assistance, some more than others.

---

It may be that government will have some role in the business of helping to educate people with job skills, and that can be a matter of legitimate discussion. But that should be a local decision, not a federal one. I always get nervous when I see someone talking about providing "assistance". The feds manage money terribly, and in fact have no money, being 21 tril in debt and still climbing. I can handle discussing many ideas so long as we first balance the federal budget.

Quote:

---

The very notion of wealth and resource re-distribution sends shivers up their spine.

---

"Resource distribution", also known as theft. It is so funny how liberals try to justify the seizure of property and income from one American to give to another American, so long as it is someone else's property and income. When you decide to give 20% of your wealth and income to the poor, then you can start talking about taking someone else's. But even then, let's call it what it is: theft. Government sponsored, government enforced theft. The very idea of it should turn the stomach of every freedom loving American.

Quote:

---

You haven't answered the basic question what do you do with unneeded humans as we transition our economy? Obviously you cannot just discard them, ignore them, no matter how you denigrate them to facilitate such an attitude. Maybe a blacksmith can start loading wagons but in today's reality, people have to eat as they find ways to leverage there skills or non skills, or abilities and lets face it everyone will not, or cannot make such a change overnight, nor without assistance, some more than others.

---

The ones that have foresight see the writing on the wall and do what's necessary to transition when the time comes . It doesn't take much training to turn a trolley driver into a bus driver or a draftsman into someone who can do the same job on a computer . So most of it is individual initiative the way I see it . I guess the rest become Democrat constituents .

Quote:

---

jobs exist because of population growth but that has to stop.

---

not true ,jobs exist because of the demand for goods and services . Population stagnation ? I have no issues with legal immigration . Markets stagnant because of the foolish

Paul R. Ehrlich like policies . I can't believe you buy into that hogwash . There is a need to provide goods and services to expanding markets in other countries . The company I work for imports goods from around the world and sells product to the global market . Our workforce is from more than a dozen different nations. I cant believe someone with your training thinks the economic pie is set . The truth and you know it is that the global market place is expanding rapidly and the demand for goods and services has never been higher . Why the pessimism ? There has never been a better time to be alive than today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

It may be that government will have some role in the business of helping to educate people with job skills, and that can be a matter of legitimate discussion. But that should be a local decision, not a federal one. I always get nervous when I see someone talking about providing "assistance". The feds manage money terribly, and in fact have no money, being 21 tril in debt and still climbing. I can handle discussing many ideas so long as we first balance the federal budget.

---

There is no maybe to it as its imperative for OUR government to play a role in helping folks participate in the collective effort of forming a more perfect union. I agree with as it is it's not perfect now, and plenty of room for improvement, and that is quite a challenge admittedly.

Quote:

---

"Resource distribution", also known as theft. It is so funny how liberals try to justify the seizure of property and income from one American to give to another American, so long as it is someone else's property and income. When you decide to give 20% of your wealth and income to the poor, then you can start talking about taking someone else's. But even then, let's call it what it is: theft. Government sponsored, government enforced theft. The very idea of it should turn the stomach of every freedom loving American.

---

The Dufus and his ilk are stealing YOUR wealth and income right under your nose but of course conservatives think it's raining instead of getting peed on by YOUR lying cheating Dufus and his greedy rich sycophants. That turns my stomach, just as when the Tea Party formed to get government out of their lives but keep them SSI checks coming.

Quote:

---

The Dufus and his ilk are stealing YOUR wealth and income right under your nose

---

How are they doing that, other than by engaging in deficit spending in the same way Mr. Obama did.

After the Trump tax cuts he wants to cut them yet again

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.7104a10859ac

Quote:

---

After the Trump tax cuts he wants to cut them yet again

---

Wow. Tax cuts are stealing. That's so funny I can hardly handle it. Already, the top 1% of wage earners pay about a third of income taxes. The top 10% pay about 2/3.

You'll have to come up with something a lot better than that. To say that letting someone keep more of their money amounts to stealing is just crazy.

What a strange philosophy you have. If someone gets to keep their money, it's stealing, but if the feds force that person to give part of their income to another American, it's charity.

There are, as best as I can figure it, four approaches to charity. When we see a needy person, we can:

1. Ignore them. "Not my problem." I don't think anyone in this discussion falls in that category.
2. We can want to help them, but realize that they don't want our help. I see that frequently. It's unfortunate, but it's reality.
3. We can want to help them, and determine to use our own resources and time to do so. That's what the Good Samaritan did. It's loving your neighbor. We might even enlist the help of others. That can be even better.
4. We can want to help them, and realize they have a problem that an average person can solve (which is most people), but then determine to force others to do so, and in doing so we actually believe we are good people.
5. We can want to help them, realize that they have a problem that the average person cannot help with (e.g. serious mental illness), and attempt to enlist the help of the government (hopefully state or local).

Everyone needs to decide in which category they fall.

Number 5 is the way its set up. You go to your local office (Either the city or county) when you have an issue. They are supported by the state and the state is supported by the federal government. States make their own rules under federal guidelines.

Quote:

---

Number 5 is the way its set up. You go to your local office (Either the city or county) when you have an issue. They are supported by the state and the state is supported by the federal government. States make their own rules under federal guidelines.

---

People with all sorts of common problems get federal aid. A woman can have several children out of wedlock, secure in the knowledge that each additional child brings in a bigger check. What you are saying is simply not true. You need to read #5 more carefully.

Now here is charity.

https://www.facebook.com/CBSEveningN...57294073/?t=46

Quote:

---

People with all sorts of common problems get federal aid.

---

Our tax dollars at work....

Quote:

---

Wow. Tax cuts are stealing.

---

yup they take money you earn and then once a year ,if you have given them more than they think you should ,they cut a check to you and you should be thankful the government gave you money .

The role of the government and it's power to tax and spend has always been contentious in this country going back to Hamilton arguing in the Federalist Papers for a broad interpretation of the government powers ,and Madison arguing for a narrow interpretation of the General Welfare Clause in Art 1 Sec 8 clause 1 .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

People with all sorts of common problems get federal aid. A woman can have several children out of wedlock, secure in the knowledge that each additional child brings in a bigger check. What you are saying is simply not true. You need to read #5 more carefully.

---

I have known woman who game the system, there is never a shortage of people who do it seems. I'm not for those people that do, and have been pretty careful to say so. The vast majority I have run across are just good people in need rather than gamers though. It's not as easy as you think for a woman to get benefits with those 6 kids as you think. Nor as prevalent.

You can look into the process and procedures in your own jurisdiction if you like. In the ones I have worked in there are terms and conditions to be met, as well as penalties for noncompliance. There are a growing number of families and MEN applying for assistance also that most people may not be aware of and also ex felons and people on probation trying to stay out of jail which is not easy at all.

There are many who have made mistakes and not just have kids while not being married. I fully share your ideas about the gamers though, and that does have consequences.

You sound like you approve of the system

It could be more effective and efficient. The idea of starving people is not an appealing option. Just the opportunities it provides for educational and vocatioonal training makes it worthwhile.

You do know what those founders who Tom has faith in did about starving people, they provided them with guns to hunt their food or slavery to earn it, you on the other hand want to pay them to sit on their backside

I suppose we could give them a gun, slavery has been abolished though we do have a form of economic slaves. Strange though that the majority no longer need welfare after they get their act together. Average time is two years. Longer for the working poor, the aged, and low wage families though. Once they started the southern strategy though to get elected the whole story got blown way out of proportion. You would be surprised the successful people who were on public assistance before they turned their lives around.

But why argue with those that don't care about the facts when their misperceptions reinforce their own beliefs, and false narrative.

Oh I don't know, I argue with you with similar result. You converted slavery into a minimum wage utopia and there we have a strange statistic, half the population are below the poverty line, whatever that is, and you speak elegantly of

"the working poor, the aged, and low wage families" as though they have the ability to lift themselves from poverty merely because of residency.

Tal, you live in the same dillusion as those you oppose

not true 15-16% of Americans live at or below the poverty line. That is even relative because each nation creates it's own poverty line .So affluent nations poor are better off than most countries poor. From the NY Times ….


https://b-i.forbesimg.com/timworstal...ic-custom1.jpg

Notice how the entire line for the United States resides in the top portion of the graph? That’s because the entire country is relatively rich. In fact, America’s bottom ventile is still richer than most of the world: That is, the typical person in the bottom 5 percent of the American income distribution is still richer than 68 percent of the world’s inhabitants.
Now check out the line for India. India’s poorest ventile corresponds with the 4th poorest percentile worldwide. And its richest? The 68th percentile. Yes, that’s right: America’s poorest are, as a group, about as rich as India’s richest.

All of which should be something of a reality check for those who insist that America's poor are being forgotten, left behind and all the rest.

Even if you're stuck in the bottom 5% of the US income distribution your standard of living is about equal to that of the top 5% of Indians. Even if you're in the bottom 10% your standard of living is about the same as that of the bottom 10% in other rich countries (which, so we are told, care so much more and do so much more) like Sweden and Finland. And when we sweep everything together into some sort of quality of life measure the American poor are better off than the French or German poor. Maybe it's true that the US doesn't do enough for the poor in the US. That's rather a judgement call based upon your own morals. But it's very difficult to see in the actual figures that the US doesn't do enough. The poor in the US are richer than around 70% of all the people extant. The poor in the US are about as poor, perhaps a bit richer, than the poor in other rich countries. It is true that there is more inequality in the US: but this isn't because the poor are poorer. It's because the rich are richer.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors.../#3c6ca4b854ef

The number of people receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits declined by 3.1 million since Trump assumed office.

A very subjective graph, undoubtedly a poor person in a western country has more money than a poor person in a third world country, but there is a difference in purchasing power, so they are still poor and under privileged. In China I could buy breakfast for $0.20, I can't do it here

I don't compare countries just observe my own and 45 million below poverty does not reflect the people who are just above it by a few bucks, of which the numbers goes way up to half of Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

The number of people receiving Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits declined by 3.1 million since Trump assumed office.

---

What a non-sequitur!! Trump has nothing to do with declining SNAP enrollment. Simple cause and effect - bad times more SNAP, good times less SNAP. People who find jobs have less need for food assistance. SNAP also declined during Obama administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

not true 15-16% of Americans live at or below the poverty line. That is even relative because each nation creates it's own poverty line .So affluent nations poor are better off than most countries poor. From the NY Times ….


https://b-i.forbesimg.com/timworstal...ic-custom1.jpg

Notice how the entire line for the United States resides in the top portion of the graph? That’s because the entire country is relatively rich. In fact, America’s bottom ventile is still richer than most of the world: That is, the typical person in the bottom 5 percent of the American income distribution is still richer than 68 percent of the world’s inhabitants.
Now check out the line for India. India’s poorest ventile corresponds with the 4th poorest percentile worldwide. And its richest? The 68th percentile. Yes, that’s right: America’s poorest are, as a group, about as rich as India’s richest.

All of which should be something of a reality check for those who insist that America's poor are being forgotten, left behind and all the rest.

Even if you're stuck in the bottom 5% of the US income distribution your standard of living is about equal to that of the top 5% of Indians. Even if you're in the bottom 10% your standard of living is about the same as that of the bottom 10% in other rich countries (which, so we are told, care so much more and do so much more) like Sweden and Finland. And when we sweep everything together into some sort of quality of life measure the American poor are better off than the French or German poor. Maybe it's true that the US doesn't do enough for the poor in the US. That's rather a judgement call based upon your own morals. But it's very difficult to see in the actual figures that the US doesn't do enough. The poor in the US are richer than around 70% of all the people extant. The poor in the US are about as poor, perhaps a bit richer, than the poor in other rich countries. It is true that there is more inequality in the US: but this isn't because the poor are poorer. It's because the rich are richer.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors.../#3c6ca4b854ef

---

Comparing poverty with other countries is always an exercise in futility, and misleading. Poverty in America is NOT poverty in Africa. True that the cost of living has to be taken into account which tends to reduce gross disparities.

The real issue, in my opinion, is income inequality.

He addressed that Athos,

Quote:

---

It is true that there is more inequality in the US: but this isn't because the poor are poorer. It's because the rich are richer.

---

Rising prices and getting priced out of the market for goods and services doesn't count. Brings the question of WHY after tax cuts and as much corporate welfare they can handle has a low wage worker NOT gotten a raise?

HINT; Starts with G and rhymes with NEED!

Can't be Campaign Contributions can it?

income inequity . a very Marxist view of the world .

According to the government’s own reports, the typical American defined as poor by the Census Bureau has a car, air conditioning, and cable or satellite TV. Half of the poor have computers, 43 percent have Internet, and 40 percent have a wide-screen plasma or LCD TV.
Far from being overcrowded, poor Americans have more living space in their home than the average non-poor person in Western Europe. Some 42 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, only 4 percent of poor children were hungry for even a single day in the prior year because the family could not afford food. By its own report, the average poor person had sufficient funds to meet all essential needs and was able to obtain medical care for his family throughout the year whenever needed.

You tout the poor that make it, and we talk of the poor that don't and by your own posts, that's MORE than half of the poor population Income inequality exists not in Marxland but in America, and accounts for 90% of the country.

That's A LOT more than half. As far as those medical needs being met, maybe you should dig into those states that limited Medicaid, and all those folks that that never see a doctor for lack of funds or insurance.

https://www.kff.org/other/state-indi...2:%22asc%22%7D

https://www.cdc.gov/MinorityHealth/index.html

Tal, you seem to be very concerned about the poor. What are you doing personally, with your own resources, to help the poor? Not pointing a finger, just asking.

As a friend of Bill, I do a lot of volunteer work with addicts and alcoholics trying to turn their lives around by getting jobs, training for jobs, benefits, housing, and that often means daycare services, restoring of rights following release from jail if needed manning hotlines and food drives sponsored by churches and NGO's, and various women's shelters, sometimes light weight maintenance so I have seen many not at their best and how you kick someone who's down is beyond me.

Not doing a lot lately, personal family and health issues to deal with, but its hard to turn down requests and emergencies. I just do what I can, because I know first hand how much it means when strangers do what they could for me when I was down, overwhelmed and helpless.

I'm about what you would expect from a person with a PHD from the College of Hard Knocks. Glad you asked.

Quote:

---

I'm about what you would expect from a person with a PHD from the College of Hard Knocks.

---

Sometimes I think that's one of the best degrees you can have.

Interesting that you and I are both involved with helping addicts. Very tough deal.

I'm interested in when you think I have kicked someone who is down. If you have gotten that from my writing, then I have plainly not been accurate. I think I have repeatedly stated I am all for helping those who are down, but I am against the forcible taking of money from some people to give to others. I am in favor of ME doing something and then helping others get involved. But kicking someone who is down? I'd love to know where you got that from.

Bill who?

Don't take it personally, sometimes my zeal to defend those who are not here to defend themselves gets rather passionate, and I acknowledge this. I always think that that it's unfair to denigrate folks because they are different, have issues, or go against someone's belief system without taking a look at their story, situation and circumstance. Having scrounged around in the gutter myself I know how easy it is to get there and how hard it is to find the curb and pull yourself up to the sidewalk. It's darn near impossible for many without some help. It's a very desperate situation and I just have a place in my heart for women and children who are often helpless.

So when Bill told me to count my blessings and be grateful, and pass it on to another who suffers, I try to do just that to the fullest of my ability. That's when I learned that drugs and alcohol, and the behavior that comes with it, are but the visible symptom of deeper problems that need to be addressed.

Now you know how I keep my sanity, even if I cross the lines of good behavior sometimes and if I did that, then you have my apology. I try to do better, but it don't always work but I keep trying. I hope I answered your question.

So Tal all you can do is help, you cannot solve the problem

Doing NOTHING is no solution either.

Quote:

---

I always think that that it's unfair to denigrate folks because they are different, have issues, or go against someone's belief system without taking a look at their story, situation and circumstance.

---

I agree completely. To denigrate someone is one thing. To say that an activity is unwise and counterproductive is not only not denigration, it is one of the aspects of love. To pretend that it is productive is wrong.

I appreciate you sharing your story. For me, I was raised with two great parents in a barely middle class home. I went to a church where the Gospel was preached and we were told that we have a personal responsibility before Jesus for those who are struggling. I have lived that way (imperfectly) all my adult life. I do get tired of the "holier than thou" outlook of liberals who think that because they legally force others to engage in charity, that they are somehow on a high moral plane. I am convinced that taking money from one American to give to another is, itself, immoral. But I do enjoy seeing the outlooks of others.

Thanks for sharing JL, I have always thought you were KOOL from the plumbing pages. We may disagree about many things as folks are likely to do, but I respect your side of it even if I can't see it. I ain't shy about my opinions and happily you aren't either. Actually that's what makes you KOOL with me! Just my OPINION. 8)

Quote:

---

Thanks for sharing JL, I have always thought you were KOOL from the plumbing pages. We may disagree about many things as folks are likely to do, but I respect your side of it even if I can't see it. I ain't shy about my opinions and happily you aren't either. Actually that's what makes you KOOL with me! Just my OPINION. 8)

---

Amen. We can discuss things, disagree, and still respect each other. Now if we can only talk the other 320 million Americans into doing that, our country will improve.

You are in no danger from the pigs

The Dufus and his sycophants are the danger. Check your pockets.

And so the game continues! Check your pockets for higher wages and lower taxes, or check your pockets to make sure a liberal is not exercising his/her morality by taking your money and giving it to the poor?