[tomder55]

tell me when have you tried them

Lol in 1964 the US began sending massively on anti-poverty programs($12 trillion + to date... almost the equivalent of the total GDP of the US ) . The results is that the poverty rate has declined from apx 19 % to apx 16 % . Great investment ! What they did instead was create a multi-generational dependency class.
The best answer to 'wage war on poverty' is a healthy, growing economy that is allowed to flourish with as little government intervention as necessary... and the eventual elimination of programs that destroy the incentives to work and produce. I'm not the one calling them lazy . I blame the government ;not them .

[paraclete]

lol in 1964 the US began sending massively on anti-poverty programs($12 trillion + to date ...almost the equivalent of the total GDP of the US ) . The results is that the poverty rate has declined from apx 19 % to apx 16 % . Great investment ! What they did instead was create a multi-generational dependency class.
The best answer to 'wage war on poverty' is a healthy, growing economy that is allowed to flourish with as little government intervention as necessary ....and the eventual elimination of programs that destroy the incentives to work and produce. I'm not the one calling them lazy . I blame the government ;not them .

My previous comment is valid. Tom the program has some success you have acknowledged this. Waging war on poverty is no one size fits all thing, we do, we learn, we adapt, this is all it can be. In that time you have had some disasters that have added displacement and you have had a massive economic depression, it is easy to forget that, that you are still ahead is to be applauded, not denegrated. We would all like to see your economy flourish because other economies will flourish also, but, and I know this is true of my own economy, the problems are endemic and I agree throwing money at them doesn't get results, not the desired result. Job creation is key and your rich must be given incentive to invest their money on local industry.

I also think that long term unemployed and welfare reciprants must be forced into appropriate retraining with assistance to find employment

[tomder55]

my previous comment is valid. Tom the program has some success you have acknowledged this.

4% difference since 1964 ? If we had just cut them a check for the money wasted in social engineering they'd all be driving Mercedes .

[paraclete]

4% difference since 1964 ? If we had just cut them a check for the money wasted in social engineering they'd all be driving Mercedes .

Tom you and I both know you must give them incentive to drive Chevi's or even as a last resort Fords, NO, don't give up

[talaniman]

So the profiteers are the ones who should run the country? Then what's the point of elections? We seem to disagree who the nanny should be here Tom, the elected, or rich guys.

The way I see it is a weak central government makes for a powerful elite class that makes too many poor and dependent people subject to their profits over people approach. That's the nanny state that's ruining us, dependence on the rich.

[Tuttyd]

4% difference since 1964 ? If we had just cut them a check for the money wasted in social engineering they'd all be driving Mercedes .

Tom, you are very big on quotes.Who said that the measure of a society is judged by the way it treats it weakest members? I don't know, but someone said it.

Absolutely no doubt that the weakest members of society would have long since squandered their Mercedes. And you point is?

[tomder55]

Tom, you are very big on quotes.Who said that the measure of a society is judged by the way it treats it weakest members? I don't know, but someone said it.

Absolutely no doubt that the weakest members of society would have long since squandered their Mercedes. And you point is?

My point is the futility of these social engineering programs that the left have constructed . By the way your distortion of Matthew 25:41-46 doesn't cut it . Jesus never once told us to create governments that follow the scriptures. They are for individual salvation. I've said it before and I'll say it again; there is no virtue in picking someone's pocket ;or compelling someone to contribute to charity .

[Tuttyd]

my point is the futility of these social engineering programs that the left have constructed . btw your distortion of Matthew 25:41-46 doesn't cut it . Jesus never once told us to create governments that follow the scriptures. They are for individual salvation. I've said it before and I'll say it again; there is no virtue in picking someone's pocket ;or compelling someone to contribute to charity .

As I said in the beginning I don't know where the quote came from. I am sure many people have used the quote down through the ages. There was no attempt at distortion on my part.

What does moral virtue have to do with modern politics? You still have the opportunity to be a socialist and virtuous.In exactly the same way you can be a capitalist and be virtuous.

[talaniman]

my point is the futility of these social engineering programs that the left have constructed

Maybe the elites can sell us bootstraps for a profit of course to pull ourselves up from poverty. The most failed social engineering program I have seen is the rights profits over people concept. They control the flow of money and the writing of laws to make whatever they do legal. They write regulations to make MO' MONEY and corrupt the whole government process.

Poor people are the results of the broken supply side economic model that only works for a few.

[tomder55]

As I said in the beginning I don't know where the quote came from

yes it has been used falsely to justify taking from Peter to pay Paul

You still have the opportunity to be a socialist and virtuous

.Yes ,you can voluntarily shell out money to help the poor . That's virtuous. Taking money from others to force them to involuntarily contribute is neither virtuous for the person forcing the action ,nor the one forced to contribute. But more importantly ;that is NOT the role of government . Taxes should fund necessary government functions .Anything else is abuse of power.

So if you want some scripture to live by try some 2 Thessalonians 3
We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. .

[paraclete]

So the profiteers are the ones who should run the country? Then what's the point of elections? We seem to disagree who the nanny should be here Tom, the elected, or rich guys.

The way I see it is a weak central government makes for a powerful elite class that makes too many poor and dependent people subject to their profits over people approach. That's the nanny state that's ruining us, dependence on the rich.

Yep tal you got it in one, the benevolent dictatorship except they aren't very benevolent

[Tuttyd]

yes it has been used falsely to justify taking from Peter to pay Paul

.Yes ,you can voluntarily shell out money to help the poor . That's virtuous. Taking money from others to force them to involuntarily contribute is neither virtuous for the person forcing the action ,nor the one forced to contribute. But more importantly ;that is NOT the role of government . Taxes should fund necessary government functions .Anything else is abuse of power.

Yes, but my point was that it is not the role of government to be virtuous. This would be impossible.

So if you want some scripture to live by try some 2 Thessalonians 3
We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. .

Thanks I'll take it on board along with my other quotes.

Tut

[talaniman]

The situation we face now is one where people who want to work cannot, because the "job creators" have taken to trickling down those jobs. Whole cities have been devastated by the for profit business model that benefits the few, at the expense of the many.

To ignore such cause, and effect realities for good intentioned religious dogma is part of the problem.

[tomder55]

Maybe you think they owe you a living ? You cannot ignore the impact of government actions in the calculus of where and if they create jobs. Why don't YOU create those jobs instead of insulting them .

[talaniman]

QUOTE by tomder
Maybe you think they owe you a living?

So job creators don't have to create jobs and living wages? Just make profits and exploit the cheapest labor they can get? They owe me nothing but fair pay for an honest days work. Their (and yours) ideas of what's fair is the area of conflict.

You cannot ignore the impact of government actions in the calculus of where and if they create jobs.

I cannot ignore the impact of profiteers in the elite private sector that have MORE impact on both government, and citizens.

Why don't YOU create those jobs instead of insulting them.

I never said I was a job creator, they did. You say they have a right to profit and no obligation to the workers, I say they have a right to profits and an obligation to be fair, and equitable.

[paraclete]

So if you want some scripture to live by try some 2 Thessalonians 3
We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to make ourselves a model for you to follow. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat. .

So Tom you see the solution in telling the poor to get a job not very helpful. Did you pause to consider the circumstances of the person you quoted from Scripture? Here was an international traveller, a person of means and of some skill as a sailmaker. What you are saying is a cop out, you don't want government to address the problem through taxes and you don't want to address the problem yourself. I expect you are like the person who the other day said we should eliminate the bottom 20% of the population because they are a drain on society. The days of nazism are not dead

[tomder55]

and you don't want to address the problem yourself. I expect you are like the person who the other day said we should eliminate the bottom 20% of the population because they are a drain on society. The days of nazism are not dead

Very hurtful ! You know better than that . I've made my position very clear .Charity is not the proper role of government . That doesn't mean I don't contribute to charity . It means I contribute above what the government grabs out of my pocket ,and would willingly give more if the heavy hand of the government wasn't so deep in my pocket.

I say a lot of negative things about Bill Clinton . But one thing he got right was workfare.. or as you like to call it in Aussie... mutual obligation.
1.1.M.160 Mutual obligation

it is fair and reasonable to expect unemployed people receiving income support to do their best to find work, undertake activities that will improve their skills and increase their employment prospects and, in some circumstances, contribute something to their community in return for receiving income support.

I guess you got your Nazi's too .

[paraclete]

Oh yes we have seen a few Pauline Hanson just won't quit

[tomder55]

Now that we have the first estimate of Q1 GDP growth in both rate of change and absolute current dollar terms ($16,010 billion), we can finally assign the appropriate debt number, which we know on a daily basis and which was $16,771.4 billion as of March 31, to the growth number. The end result: as of March 31, 2013, the US debt/GDP was 104.8%, up from 103% as of December 31, 2012 or a debt growth rate that would make the most insolvent Eurozone nation blush. There was a time when people were concerned about this unsustainable trajectory, but then there was an infamous excel error, and now nobody cares anymore.

Total US Debt To GDP: 105% | Zero Hedge
Has all this pump priming made a difference ? Nah

Gross domestic product expanded at 2.5 percent annual rate, the Commerce Department said on Friday, after growth nearly stalled at 0.4 percent in the fourth quarter. The increase, however, missed economists' expectations for a 3.0 percent growth pace.

Part of the acceleration in activity reflected farmers' filling up silos after a drought last summer decimated crop output. Removing inventories, the growth rate was a tepid 1.5 percent.

Oops! Economic Growth Wasn't So Great After All
I suppose the Dems will begin talking about a sluggish insignificant growth as the 'new normal'.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

I suppose the Dems will begin talking about a sluggish insignificant growth as the 'new normal'.

You don't expect growth when you enter an age of austerity, do you??

That's downright bonkers...

Excon