(08-20-2014 09:25 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  He's Dead......

and Owl.... When I go about giving these other guys the business. It's never to you. Never. You at least try to have the conversation. Look at some of these yahoots and their one sentence responses. They are the ostriches of the political arena.

I can sum it up this way......

POVERTY IS A FUKEN BYTCH BOYS!!!!!!!!

Thanks, but I'd be interested in your response to my questions.

We have exactly the system that you would design if you were intending to entrap the poor in poverty as a permanent voting block. I cannot say that's the democrat's motive, since I'm not privy to their inner sanctum. But if it's not, I'd be really interested in knowing what is. And if they're truly trying to help the poor, they've done a damned incompetent job of designing a system to accomplish that.

The Clown narrative is SOAF"s go to Pennicillin............... Put up the dancin clown now......

I don't believe it is possible for you. Other than the cut taxes and the go to burdensome regulations line. Other than these blanket mfing simplistic options. What has the GOP offered an urban dwellar? SOAF and ONLY SOAF! Don't ask Owl in pm either. Think for yourself SOAF. Don't go look up something on NewsMax. What do YOU think or can YOU remember anything the GOP has done to address inner city problems?

So why is it when you go into section 8 housing you see Cable TV with multi DVR's, High Speed internet, DVD and CD collections, Kids with Smartphones, Expensive Clothes and Name brand Sneakers. Someone's paying for those items , or worse. I know folks in those places and have seen it widespread. I guess it's an Urban version of Hank Jr's Country Boy can survive. Only Change Country to Urban.

What's your question? I can tell you things the GOP actively does to make the problems worse! In Toledo Ohio. They have effectively closed down the abortion clinic. Sure, a suburban teen from a family of means can drive down to Columbus and still get an abortion, but a single teen from Bancroft and Cherry will now be stuck having a kid that they can not afford.

That's low hanging fruit, but it's the easiest one.

I preach to every kid at the beginning of every school year. What is the most direct correlation that will determine if you live in poverty and vice versa what is the most direct correlation if you make over 100,000 dollars a year.

The answer is the age you have kids. The statistic is astounding. It's over 96%. A guidance counselor of ours who retired had it on his wall. If you are a teenager and have a kid. It's over a 96% chance you will live at or below the US poverty line.

Think about that. Then think which party tries to help or hinder that.

So why is it when you go into section 8 housing you see Cable TV with multi DVR's, High Speed internet, DVD and CD collections, Kids with Smartphones, Expensive Clothes and Name brand Sneakers.

I don't believe this for one freaking second. Card Fan I go up to the Cleveland Clinic every two weeks. I go by public housing on 55th street. EVERY TWO WEEKS. It's where Jesse Owens grew up. I promise you it's not the multiple DVR SMARTPHONE ghettofab world you are trying to project. It's just not reality.

(08-20-2014 09:42 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  The Clown narrative is SOAF"s go to Pennicillin............... Put up the dancin clown now......

I don't believe it is possible for you. Other than the cut taxes and the go to burdensome regulations line. Other than these blanket mfing simplistic options. What has the GOP offered an urban dwellar? SOAF and ONLY SOAF! Don't ask Owl in pm either. Think for yourself SOAF. Don't go look up something on NewsMax. What do YOU think or can YOU remember anything the GOP has done to address inner city problems?

There is nothing I can say that will persuade your die hard liberalism. I gave up on you long ago. Republican solutions are no mystery. You have been shown the path to options that have worked in the past. Let that sink in to your simplistic mind. WORKED IN THE PAST. Instead you choose to embrace options that have failed in the past. Why is that? It is your ideology that makes you the way you are. Now, Failure is your only option. So play your clownish blame game, as your dear leader has shown you how. Close your eyes and say ... "Blah, blah, blah", as you have been instructed to regurgitate.

You are brainwashed.

[img]

(08-20-2014 09:44 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  So why is it when you go into section 8 housing you see Cable TV with multi DVR's, High Speed internet, DVD and CD collections, Kids with Smartphones, Expensive Clothes and Name brand Sneakers. Someone's paying for those items , or worse. I know folks in those places and have seen it widespread. I guess it's an Urban version of Hank Jr's Country Boy can survive. Only Change Country to Urban.

All that stuff is subsidized by folks like you and me.

(08-20-2014 09:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What's your question? I can tell you things the GOP actively does to make the problems worse! In Toledo Ohio. They have effectively closed down the abortion clinic. Sure, a suburban teen from a family of means can drive down to Columbus and still get an abortion, but a single teen from Bancroft and Cherry will now be stuck having a kid that they can not afford.

That's low hanging fruit, but it's the easiest one.

I preach to every kid at the beginning of every school year. What is the most direct correlation that will determine if you live in poverty and vice versa what is the most direct correlation if you make over 100,000 dollars a year.

The answer is the age you have kids. The statistic is astounding. It's over 96%. A guidance counselor of ours who retired had it on his wall. If you are a teenager and have a kid. It's over a 96% chance you will live at or below the US poverty line.

Think about that. Then think which party tries to help or hinder that.

Mach,

The GOP isn't allowed to have a conversation regarding inner city poverty because anytime they do you hear talk of 'code words' and 'dog whistles' which is used to generate fear that they Republican party is going to do something to reduces entitlements. Now step back for a second and ask yourself, why are gov't handouts crafted as they only means to ameliorate poverty in the urban area? The same policies that the GOP would enact would affect poor whites in the sticks, but you don't see the DNC agitating that particular group in a similar manner.

With regard to the situation that you mentioned above, statistics clearly show that inner city youth have access to abortion by virtue of the rates of use. But why is an abortion such a sacrosanct tool to alleviate parenthood when their are a plethora of other options available for use prior to the end of the first trimester? I think you would get far more enthusiasm from the GOP as well as little objection of gov't support if the conversation were geared towards IUD's and other hormonal birth control options. Unfortunately, those choices aren't ever on the table.

(08-20-2014 09:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What's your question?

Two questions really, one plus a follow up:

One, if you were going to design a system to trap the poor forever in poverty, what would you do differently from what we have now? I can't think of a thing, wondering if you can.

Two, if you can't come up with material differences between the system we have now and the one you would have if you were trying to trap the poor in poverty, is that because democrats have as their objective trapping a permanent voting bloc in poverty, or is that because they have some other objective but are totally incompetent?

And a third question, for republicans, this is so obvious, why aren't republicans making this an issue that they can use?

(08-20-2014 10:17 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 09:49 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  What's your question? I can tell you things the GOP actively does to make the problems worse! In Toledo Ohio. They have effectively closed down the abortion clinic. Sure, a suburban teen from a family of means can drive down to Columbus and still get an abortion, but a single teen from Bancroft and Cherry will now be stuck having a kid that they can not afford.

That's low hanging fruit, but it's the easiest one.

I preach to every kid at the beginning of every school year. What is the most direct correlation that will determine if you live in poverty and vice versa what is the most direct correlation if you make over 100,000 dollars a year.

The answer is the age you have kids. The statistic is astounding. It's over 96%. A guidance counselor of ours who retired had it on his wall. If you are a teenager and have a kid. It's over a 96% chance you will live at or below the US poverty line.

Think about that. Then think which party tries to help or hinder that.

Mach,

The GOP isn't allowed to have a conversation regarding inner city poverty because anytime they do you hear talk of 'code words' and 'dog whistles' which is used to generate fear that they Republican party is going to do something to reduces entitlements. Now step back for a second and ask yourself, why are gov't handouts crafted as they only means to ameliorate poverty in the urban area? The same policies that the GOP would enact would affect poor whites in the sticks, but you don't see the DNC agitating that particular group in a similar manner.

With regard to the situation that you mentioned above, statistics clearly show that inner city youth have access to abortion by virtue of the rates of use. But why is an abortion such a sacrosanct tool to alleviate parenthood when their are a plethora of other options available for use prior to the end of the first trimester? I think you would get far more enthusiasm from the GOP as well as little objection of gov't support if the conversation were geared towards IUD's and other hormonal birth control options. Unfortunately, those choices aren't ever on the table.

This. And That.

Start with Kemp, he may be dead, his ideas aren't nor should they be.

Newt had/has some interesting and outside the box ideas, thoughts, solutions he's offered for years. He's been ridiculed and made a poster boy of the evil right wing greedy rich white republican out to "put ya'll back in chains"...

How does one get heard when the rhetoric starts there?

Paul Ryan. He has a number of proposals out there, one needs only look them up. But, of course, he's also roundly criticized by the Poverty Pimps because most if not all of them contain the much maligned word... reform. His reform wants to decentralize entire areas of public assistance and let the States operate more independently while under Fed supervision or guidance.

But that one, single, word is scary to many and a fundraising freaking bonanza to our friends in the party you so avidly support.

There are many, many others out there, Jeb Bush for another, actually.

Now let me ask a similar question of you, since I've given a reasonably decent answer. Who on the left offers a comprehensive plan to reduce poverty? Create jobs?

Making poverty nominally more "comfortable" isn't addressing or reducing poverty in the least, it's perpetuating it. Who has proposed any kind of reform or ideas or policy paper to get people OFF the Government dole and being self sufficient?

Pelosi? Rangel? John Conyers? Elijah Cummings or Harry Reid? Al franken perhaps?!?

Or better, how about your very own food stamp president himself? What has he done or proposed that would help people out of poverty and the "ghetto"?

Wasn't that what the very essence of what Hopey-Changey was all about?

He's the big man, he's got the bully pulpit, his pen and a phone. Yet now it's the Republicans issue to solve or offer solutions.

Clean up your own back yard.

1. The system is a trap. Once you've entered it it would be hard to exit it. Maybe 1 in 1000 can.

2. I would eliminate the more kids you have the bigger the check. I would reverse it as a matter of fact. They would get more money if that had one child on a WIC program vs. 4. I would also make sure we didn't have abortion clinics closing in these high need areas. The social services are ABSOLUTELY FLOODED in these high needs areas.

Yet now it's the Republicans issue to solve or offer solutions.


I think the D's try to solve it by the education route but they are terribly misguided there too. They have been terribly destructive also. We don't solve problems.

(08-20-2014 02:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  1. The system is a trap. Once you've entered it it would be hard to exit it. Maybe 1 in 1000 can.

2. I would eliminate the more kids you have the bigger the check. I would reverse it as a matter of fact. They would get more money if that had one child on a WIC program vs. 4. I would also make sure we didn't have abortion clinics closing in these high need areas. The social services are ABSOLUTELY FLOODED in these high needs areas.

Welllll, okay. Maybe in Mach world that would have a snowballs chance, not in the real world. So have 1 kid, you remain a ward of the State forever, but comfortably so. Great. But have 3-4 kids and we'll/they'll make darn sure you are destitute and unable to feed, clothe or house your children? In what alternate universe would ever fly?

I hardly think increasing the number of abortions would A. have much affect in real terms at all, many of those children are indeed "wanted", at least in theory. And B. would go yet even further to devalue human life in these communities and make it further clear that life is something we can simply throw away at will. There are enough lives thrown away in these communities already.

As to your first 1. It is indeed hard. But doable. I've put this up here a dozen times already, go read the reform and policies put forth in Slickie-Boys "Ending welfare as we know it" that he an Newt hammered out.

It did REAL work. Had REAL measurable, noticeable results. Then follow the issue for a few more years and see where it ended and when we had this corresponding BOOM in food stamps, Snap, EBT and whatever else they call welfare these days.

We're trying like the dickens to normalize public assistance and minimum wage jobs as something a "Family of four" can survive on. Not a temporary safety net for rough times or the job the snot nosed 16 YO kid gets that sucks so bad they strive for something better.

Now, Why on earth would anyone want to normalize that? Serious question. Why?

(08-20-2014 09:05 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-20-2014 08:41 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  and ONE MORE THING. I don't think it's a matter of Democrats harvesting the votes.

I do. If you were going to design a system to keep them trapped and dependent upon you, what would you do differently? If this is the system that you would design if that were your objective, then why should we believe that is not the objective?

Quote:
I'm going to let you guy's in on something Rand Paul already knows. You have to begin by at least having the conversation. The GOP won't even acknowledge the problems. The Democrats don't win by harvesting. They win by default. No Contest. The other side won't even show up and address the issues or acknowledge they exist. It takes a hell of a lot more than saying "You have no idea the backgrounds represented here." Ask an urban dweller about the political parties and who speaks to them. Who tries to address their everyday needs.
The GOP is a LAUGHINGSTOCK in this arena. They don't even try to start the conversation.

Agree here. Other than Rand, and going all the way back to Jack Kemp, republicans have refused to address the issue. It seems to me that the republicans could take the approach that I outlined, present it properly, and make a serious play for upwardly mobile, or poor who would like to be upwardly mobile but can't.

It will never fly. Gets beat down by the media, using various misrepresentations. Happens all the time in Baltimore.

Just look at the silly rhetorical questions that get asked here by leftists. They don't make that stuff up, they get it from leftist mouthpieces. And it's not like the urban poor have long attention spans, and a fierce drive to uncover the truth.

And that's best case scenario. Usually the questions are framed in such a way that there is no correct way to answer the situation. Other than "mu". That just speaks to Mach's disingenuousness.

(08-20-2014 02:48 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  1. The system is a trap. Once you've entered it it would be hard to exit it. Maybe 1 in 1000 can.

But doesn't that create an opportunity for republicans? Design a system that's a safety net that helps you to escape, not a trap that keeps you from escaping.

Here's the problem. Do the math, you can't handout as much as we do to the people at the absolute bottom, without either 1) making the system totally unaffordable (the European problem), or 2) cutting off funds pretty drastically at some point (the American problem).

But what if you structured the process differently, here is a floor that we are going to put in, and it's pretty much a hard floor, not 47 different programs that you have to go to each one and qualify separately for. That floor will keep you alive, it works out to about $20,000/year for a family of four, but it won't give you as much as you can get now by milking all of the different programs. And the beauty of that approach is that we're doing it basically in two systems (negative income tax/prebate and French Bismarck health care) instead of 47, and the two systems are both easy to administer, so you end up saving hundreds of billions (literally) in administrative costs that can now go to benefits. And you can still farm those focused programs out to the state, although now things like food stamps are going to be a whole lot cheaper, because the number of people poor enough to qualify just went way down.

So what's going to happen is that the media are going to vilify you, the Pelosis and Reids and Schumers and Wasserman-Schultzes of the world are going to scream that you are starving the needy, and you're not going to get the votes of the truly destitute. But you're not getting those votes now. What you have a legitimate shot at getting are the votes of the people who don't want to stay at the bottom but are facing the barriers to climbing out, the 250-350 out of 1000 who want to increase that 1 number. And a republican who can consistently get 25%-35% of the black and Hispanic vote will win, comfortably in most places. And it can be explained if you can get 1-on-1, away from the media and the spin doctors. That's pretty much what Kemp did. He was in a district that had enough blacks that he had to make a respectable showing, and he did. It probably helped that he had quarterbacked the Bills and he had some black former teammates who gave him some credibility. They got him in front of people in at least a open-minded situation, and he was able to explain it well enough to get enough votes to put him well into the winner's circle.

Quote:2. I would eliminate the more kids you have the bigger the check. I would reverse it as a matter of fact. They would get more money if that had one child on a WIC program vs. 4. I would also make sure we didn't have abortion clinics closing in these high need areas. The social services are ABSOLUTELY FLOODED in these high needs areas.

What I asked but you didn't answer is if it really is a trap, is that because the democrats want it to be a trap or because they want something else but are brutally incompetent? I'm still waiting for your answer to that one. I am patient, and I expect it's a difficult question for you to answer.

I grew up in a ghetto but it wasn't called that, it was called a barrio. A presidio it was called, or tenement. I realized that in order to succeed I'd better find a way of moving out. I almost dropped out only because I hated school and when I told my mom I was dropping out she didn't raise a stink. She only said, "fine, you go look for work the next day". Heck, I figured I'd have enough time for work after I graduated. I joined the air force and hit the g.i. bill for that monthly check that helped a lot because I was married already at 21, stupid me.

My apartment didn't have inside toilets, we had about five pairs for the whole tenement which was around 30 families. I blame my dad for keeping us in those straits but he was the macho type and only gave my mom a certain amount of money for the household bills and groceries. I loved him but he was a real stinker. One time I asked my mom why couldn't we move to the projects and she told me that my dad made too much money. It was puzzling because my cousins lived in the projects and they had all those nice things, indoor restrooms with a bathtub and shower, we had to bathe in a wash tub. My dad always would tell us to vote democrat and for a while I did but after opening my eyes I realized what the demoncrats stood for and they stood for the same type of crap my father believed in, subjugation.

My wife also rose above the projects life. She attained two degrees and a counseling certification by WORKING her way through school. I asked her why she didn't apply for grants and she told me the counselors never counseled the students on things like that. I think it was racist to a degree because we were counseled to strive for the service industries. No shite. That's what they would tell us.

That's why when I hear about these poor blacks that don't get a break I say, "bull shite". If you got the "ganas" fortitude you can. If you don't believe me ask people like Dr. Ben Carson and people like us. Those that say they can't are just plain LAZY.

1st owl,

I don't think it's meant to be a trap but it ends up that way. I certainly don't think the D's set it up that way. I think if anyone in that situation would vote the way they do by default. I don't see anyone on the other side giving them anything that fits or helps their everyday life.

2nd. Ollie,

Thanks for sharing that. I've often wondered myself if my trek in life has been good fortune or persistence. I honestly think it's a little of both. I know I am very thankful for the people whose paths I have crossed. Any success I have had has been from a direct correlation with them. I feel blessed that my Dad worked for the UAW and could help me with college. I'm thankful for the teachers who inspired me. I'm thankful for the coaches who mentored me. I could go on and on. I am certainly not naive enough to think I am solely responsible for my lot in life. I've been very very fortunate. I often think that those who have not experienced happiness just needed to be mentored by the right people.

(08-20-2014 05:22 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  1st owl,
I don't think it's meant to be a trap but it ends up that way. I certainly don't think the D's set it up that way. I think if anyone in that situation would vote the way they do by default. I don't see anyone on the other side giving them anything that fits or helps their everyday life.

So it's not that democrats intend it as a trap, it's that they are brutally incompetent?

So what about this? Why is it that when they see it working out this way, they don't change it?

I can accept the excuse, "I had the best intentions, I didn't know it was going to work out that way." Until it becomes obvious that it IS working out that way. That's where they are now. You know it. I know it. Anybody with a brain can figure it out. So why don't they change it?

And why don't the republicans change it?

This is not rocket science. There are lots of people out there who understand the problem. I've talked to more than a few who do at the homeless shelter where I periodically cook breakfast. WTF is keeping us from changing it?

Who can change it? You would think it would change at the state level no? You would have to get both parties to agree on a plan of govt. and we live in a constant state of dysfunction. Owl you are a flower toting hippie compared to Republican leadership. I just can say NO ONE on either side talks proposes or any of your proposed solutions.