50% of us are poor and low income; what are we doing about this?

You wouldn't have to if you clamor for ending the drug war; since those income transfers could be better put to use, providing for the general welfare instead of the general warfare.

 

It has more to do with equality under the law.

 

I don't mind smoking pot and not resorting to fallacies; what is your excuse for resorting to fallacies and not smoking pot?

 

I am referring to corporate welfare which even paid multimillion dollar bonuses.

 

How would ending the war on drugs motivate unemployed Obama voters to get off their butts and find a job?

 

No. The name that I use is that name that I have always used. You clearly have me confused with someone else.

 

What might be the reasons why 1 in 2 people are considered poor or low-income?

Could this be the reason?

Most people are poor because they don't stay in school and practice irresponsible and foolish behavior!

I Got 15 Kids & 3 Babydaddys-SOMEONE'S GOTTA PAY FOR ME & MY KIDS!!!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E"]I Got 15 Kids & 3 Babydaddys-SOMEONE'S GOTTA PAY FOR ME & MY KIDS!!! - YouTube[/ame]

 

Did they take away your pipe? LOL. Get real. You're the only person in this thread resorting to fallacies. Only people who lives in the pipe dream would think a country can achieve an unemployment rate of one percent or less.

 

Not creating a drain on society.

 

Those resources would be reallocated to the next best opportunity cost, under most forms of Capitalism, including our own political-economy.

What is wrong with merely providing for the common defense and general welfare of the United States?

 

What you claim of those poor may not apply if they are in official poverty; otherwise, what excuse would any civil person have to not become the best Capitalist they can be while pursuing Happiness at the same time?

 

I don't mind if you question my line of reasoning, simply to ensure I am not resorting to any fallacies, myself.

Why do you believe simply being able to apply for unemployment compensation that also solves for official poverty,

would not work in any money based market,

with that consistent economic form of stimulus on a perpetual basis;

will you explain why it would be bad for the general welfare of our republic?

 

Nearly half of the United States earns below the median income!!!!

 

In my opinion, any civil person who is not in official poverty may more easily secure the Blessings of economic forms of Liberty to themselves and their posterity and be that moral if not that holy, to our supreme commandments, law of the land, and manifesto for a temporal and secular, Heaven on Earth ordained and established for us in their wisdom, by our Founding Fathers.

 

The public sector could provide that public good and that public service which could effectively compete with the private sector, for a form of minimum wage that would simply solve for a poverty of money in money based markets as easily as a person applying for unemployment, whenever they can claim to be unemployed.

Any rational person should choose a prevailing market based wage if they believe they can command one in the private sector over a hypothetical minimum wage to not provide labor input and instead pursue some other opportunity costs while increasing the circulation of money in money based markets.

 

Well DUH! That goes along with the very definition of "median income".

"Median Income" is the average income of everybody in the country. By it's very definition, almost half the population makes more then that figure, and nearly half the population make less then that figure.

If the lowest income in the country was $1 million a year, almost half of the population would still make below the "Median Income".

So what you are saying is as obvious as rain being wet and the ground being hard.

 

Mr. Cessna,
Not everyone who is poor has fifteen (15) children nor do they have children by three (3) different fathers. What is it with people such as yourself and this fantasy about promiscuity? Single parentage is due to many factors, some of which are:

1.) divorce
2.) death of a spouse
3.) abusive relations/rape

 

Dear OldMan,
What about providing people with adequate opportunity(ies) to take themselves out of poverty and helping them to gain access to prosperity? Yes it is not a good practice to hand-feed people who have the capacity to feed themselves, but it is equally no good to abandon people and from a better position chastise the same people for not "pulling themselves out of poverty". Name me one millionaire, billionaire, etc. who has become wealthy without the aid and assistance of others. Everyone obtains help, be it from Allah Himself or the people who purchase their goods and serves as well as those who they receive financial backing from to help get themselves started. Success is not a one-way street. Oft-times it is a four (4) to five (5) lane highway with many intersections.

 

You mean end the war on drugs and use the money to give you and your cohorts a bigger unemployment check?

 

This is a valid point. My question is, where do people obtain their purpose(s) for life and who facilitates them? If a child is not guided towards finding a purpose or purposes for their life, they will surely be at a loss. This is a major failure of society in general and in the institutions of society in particular. One of the basises of society is to perpetuate itself through the people of said society. With this outlined, if a society allows entire swathes of the people of said society to drift by the wayside, than the society is not for all within it which is one of the glaring causative factors in the problems and issues that are discussed in this particular thread. It is as a gigantic pink elephant in the room that noone wants to acknowledge but it is still their.

It is the duty of every civilized person to teach civilization to all they come in contact with. If said person if that ability (civilized) fails in his or her duty, they are no longer a valid advisor or critic with logical views that should be considered.

 

It's only been a recession for 99-99.9% of the people. The others have had a booming time!

 

Well. I am glad that someone got the joke.

 

We see the same problem but based on what you have said so far we advocate very different solutions.

You want government to take responsibility for the poor and provide them with even more subsidies than they are getting now.

While I think welfare is causing people to be aimless and lazy.

 

Rereading your response, I take it back. You realized that there was a joke there and you almost got it. Try again on your definition of
"Median Income." At least you were close.

 

Dude, get real, your reasoning is not only a fallacy, it's a farce. You take the issue to a simplistic level that's ridiculous. You can't solve the problem by just taxing the rich and give it to the poor. And public welfare is designed as a safety net for the unfortunates, NOT a mean for living. Your nonsense is getting boring.

And in case you haven't noticed, economic stimulus rampant started from Ronald Reagan years, the government has been racking up $12.5 trillions in national debts in the last 30 yrs and look where we are at now? Yet your argument is the government does not spend enough. What a laughing stock you are.