Let's have that political discussion.

[Kandarim]

You can't just hand them cash and $11,000 doesn't get them out of poverty, it just maintains it.

The point is they can use the money as they see fit, not as Claeyt does. Sure, the government could force them to use $3,000 on medical insurance, if that would make the lefties agree. But how would you feel if person A gave person B some money to spend on you? And what if person B was Claeyt? I suggest that, on average, they make better decisions for themselves than some bureaucrat will for them. And if they don't at least it will be their own fault.

But would you, as a tax payer, rather see your taxes go to someone who doesn't work for it or towards encouraging said person to actively pursue an independent life style? .This is of course cruelly said, a lot of people under the poverty line work their asses off. However, recently in Belgium, the discussion about second and even third generation un-employees has been high on the political radar. People who obstinately refuse to work because the system will provide for them. Would you rather they get a yearly stipend for not working instead of paying for various forms of support that will allow those people under the poverty line willing to work to rise out of the pit?

Some notes: i am young, new to the work market and so on and so forth. Bear with me if I seem naive pardon for the ad-hoc choice of words in some places, I am not quite sure of the actual english wording in a lot of places.

[Jalpha]

This thread is full of wow.

By the end of the first three pages I started to wonder if we could just get rid of the U.S.

I'll read through some more pages when I have time.

[MagicManICT]

Not too sure what to make of this- except that perhaps your brother enjoyed his current job, despite the (ultimate) lower pay. In which case, god bless him. Otherwise, it was his choice that led to his less than ideal situation...what exactly do you propose?

You probably don't know anyone that has worked for Wal-Mart for any length of time. Yeah, they get a lot of crap for what they pay their employees and the "working conditions" (it's not a meat packing plant...), but it is a far cry better than most other places in the service industry that caters to the low and middle class. They give out regular raises and bonuses, too, as well as stock options for all employees. Most people don't work there long enough to see any benefit from these things, though. Management (store management, not department, which are basically a shift supervisor elsewhere), before bonuses, make as good as a software developer, so don't know what you mean by the lower pay. You also have to figure in all that layoff time that comes in IT. How many people has Wal-Mart laid off in the last 5 years? Also, maybe you missed the part where he was going to have to take a 25% cut in pay for a software development job?

You can't just hand them cash and $11,000 doesn't get them out of poverty, it just maintains it.

Poverty is poverty not because of amount of income, but for a myriad of other factors.... Give a poor person a million dollars, and they live high on the hog for a few months and then are poor again. Give a rich person a million dollars, and in a few years time, he or she will make another million. Hmm... seems to be something to that statement. Where does that million come from (either one or both)?

By the end of the first three pages I started to wonder if we could just get rid of the U.S.

If only we could....

[Ikpeip]

By the end of the first three pages I started to wonder if we could just get rid of the U.S.

I'm fairly certain you couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel, much less overthrow the U.S.

If only we could....

[Claeyt]

I'm going to try this one more time, just in case someone still doesn't get it...

I forgot she had two kids instead of one. Either way my points the same.

I'm not sure what your point was. But I know my point is the same- when you read something written by Claeyt you don't learn anything except what is explicitly not true.

My point was that she received the Child tax credit just like anybody else with kids.

Keep trolling jackass. I clearly read the graph right,

Real Median Income is down now to pre-Reagan numbers

You included this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_household_income
Does not say what you say it says, full stop. Median income in the graph you posted while making this claim never drops to pre-Reagan numbers. You clearly did not "read the graph right."

Even that graph shows them down to early 90's numbers.

...and to save time I'll simply refer to the other graphs I showed over the last 10 pages showing that what I said was true.

and I knew the difference between median and mean.

Talking about median:

When you adjust for the massive income growth for the richest tax percentiles and take them out you can see the fall of middle class wages to pre-Reagan amounts.

The median is the 50th percentile. If you take out the top 1% (no idea why you would do that to a median,) the new median becomes the 49.5th percentile. Do you have some specific evidence that the 49.5th percentile has done much worse than the 50th percentile? Please share with us then.

Nowhere here in this line was I talking about median. When you adjust the average without the rich, wages are exactly what I said they are.

Average household income, median income levels or average wages. Whatever you use they're down since the Bush Tax cuts and at or below their levels in the 80's.

When you remove the top 1% of income earners you see that everyone else is down to pre-Reagan numbers. True this wouldn't be the median income. I should have said average income or average wages.

You'd take out the richest 1% to show the massive distortion the rise in their incomes has on the median income.

Again, I'll use average income this time instead of median income. When you factor the average income without the top 1% of income earners, the adjusted average income has fallen to pre-Reagan levels.

The third statement just does not make sense if you know what a "median" is. If this applied to averages, then the statement could possibly be true, it just so happens it isn't. If you take the average income, something no one really uses, and take away the top 1% you get the following graph, which also does not support your assertion that "average income" is down to pre-Reagan levels. And this one isn't even close:
http://www.the-crises.com/income-inequa ... -the-us-3/
You are simply not competent to even talk about the generalities of the argument, let alone the specifics.

I'm fully competent to talk about this argument.

To save time I'll simply tell people to read all the pages before this to see where I point out sources that prove that they have fallen to those levels.

So wait...your entire ***** about me not knowing what median is, is based off that one line in the middle of that argument. After having a 2 page discussion about income, both median and average, you hijacked our discussion over that. I will change that single instance of my use of median where I should have said 'average' instead.

You misunderstood the argument and jumped in for no reason other than to argue about nothing.

I misunderstood nothing. You made factual claims that I showed not to be true. I did not enter your argument.

I made factual claims that were proven true by multiple sources.

The Sandinistas were not allowed to campaign throughout the country and the election was influenced by the Contras saying that if the Sandinistas won that they'd start the war again.

The first part is false. The Sandinistas were allowed to campaign in the country they were at the time running. Have you ever posted a source to support this ludicrous claim (which by the way was preceded by two other equally nonsensical claims about the situation in 1980s Nicaragua.) Here, I will spend two seconds on google looking....done, I found only this:
http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1989-0 ... atest-poll
Contemporary article says the exact opposite of your claim.
The second part is did the threat of the war continuing persuade some people to vote for the opposition? I am sure it did, but it is the first time you mentioned it, and it is irrelevant to the factual claim you made that the Sandinistas were not allowed to campaign, while in control of the country's media, police and army. In fact, if anything, it was the opposition who was not allowed to campaign freely.

The opposition, in this case a coalition of moderate conservative and non-Sandinista left wing groups were allowed to campaign everywhere based on where they ran. They won because of massive U.S. influence on the election and 2 Contra offensives in October and November before the election. Bush threatened to maintain the embargo against Nicaragua if Ortega won and demanded that Nicaraguans living in the United States be allowed to vote in Miami and Houston. The 2 offensives were the Contra's last and led to massive voter intimidation in areas near the Honduran border that led to 42 deaths.

Human Rights Watch 1990

"The contras have continued to operate in Nicaragua and have increased their operations there since September. Talks between the Nicaraguan government and the contras have not resumed since they broke down in June 1988, although in November 1989 talks were held in New York and Washington for the limited purpose of reaching a cease-fire agreement, after President Ortega abruptly announced the end of the unilateral cease fire his government had established the year before. Ortega's decision had been prompted by two large contra attacks, one an ambush against demobilized militias who were traveling to register for the elections. In the succession of claims and counterclaims that followed Ortega's announcement, the State Department admitted that in October, contra contingents had crossed into Nicaragua from Honduras, offering the disingenuous explanation that the purpose of the infiltration was to encourage registration for the elections.

The policy of keeping the contras alive, through so-called "humanitarian" or non-lethal aid, sustains a force that has shown itself incapable of operating without consistently committing gross abuses in violation of the laws of war. The policy also has placed in jeopardy the holding of elections by encouraging contra attacks on the electoral process. Thus, while the Bush administration proclaims its support for human rights and free and fair elections in Nicaragua, it persists in sabotaging both."

http://www.hrw.org/reports/1989/WR89/Nicaragu.htm

Jorgen is running around killing noobs with chief and the tribe according to several people who listened in on their vent.

After all the trolling Chief has done, the fact that you believed this speaks volumes of your capacity for critical thinking.

Meh, I believe the people who told me about Jorb being on the mm vent when it happened.

As for giving poor people money to get out of poverty, would you rather direct it to health care and food or just hand them the cash. It seems like spending it on medicaid, food stamps and HuD is a much better use of our taxes while being the same amount.

There are a variety of ideas, if you really want to know one, click on the youtube link. You seem to fancy yourself an expert on the topic, shouldn't you be at least aware of other ideas?

You can't just hand them cash and $11,000 doesn't get them out of poverty, it just maintains it.

The point is they can use the money as they see fit, not as Claeyt does. Sure, the government could force them to use $3,000 on medical insurance, if that would make the lefties agree. But how would you feel if person A gave person B some money to spend on you? And what if person B was Claeyt? I suggest that, on average, they make better decisions for themselves than some bureaucrat will for them. And if they don't at least it will be their own fault.
Most European countries actually do give cash, instead of stuff, as is done in the US. So families who are considered too poor to afford food are given money to buy food as opposed to food stamps, because it's more cost effective. But you wouldn't know this because you are a charlatan- You pretend to be an expert on something about which you know next to nothing.

I would absolutely want the money to be given to me for a basic guaranteed social safety net and directed at help for me to get out of poverty. Most Western-European countries have socialized medicine and food assistance cards. They do give out more cash than us. I am not a charlatan and know a lot about how the system works for those trying to get out of poverty. You may not have read this forum long enough but I talked about how I worked in the field before.

You can't just hand them cash and $11,000 doesn't get them out of poverty, it just maintains it.

Poverty is poverty not because of amount of income, but for a myriad of other factors.... Give a poor person a million dollars, and they live high on the hog for a few months and then are poor again. Give a rich person a million dollars, and in a few years time, he or she will make another million. Hmm... seems to be something to that statement. Where does that million come from (either one or both)?

That's not necessarily true, but I will agree that a rich person uses their education and knowledge to increase their wealth in some cases. Most people who win the lottery don't fall back to their pre-income levels.

[Jalpha]

I'm fairly certain you couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructions written on the heel, much less overthrow the U.S.

Our military wasn't the one which needed to print instructions on the claymore

Nevertheless a greater hive of villainy and scum there never has been since Mos Eisley. Queue now some arrogant retort about how much better the US is than everyone else. Considering I already know exactly how this conversation is going to pan out I really don't see it going anywhere. But please go ahead and share your opinions on how draining global resources to feed a nation with such a crass culture and gluttonous society is something we should all look up to and aspire towards...

I'll make it clear that not everything about the US is bad, but damn... You guys truly have no idea how the rest of the world views you. Not that you would care. It's like some form of "democratic" fascist state...

[MagicManICT]

It's like some form of "democratic" fascist state...

And mostly lead by the right wing, but the left supports it just as blindly.

[Ikpeip]

Good evening,

A telling response. You rely on jingoism, trying to deflect a criticism of your personal flaws with an appeal to your nation's military.

Our military wasn't the one which needed to print instructions on the claymore

Make no mistake, I was not disparaging the Australian military, nor would I denigrate any other members of the Big 4. The Australian Soldiers certainly seemed to have a chip on their shoulder, but are generally well-trained and competent. What I was referring to, was your personal and habitual ineffectiveness in all matters beyond running your mouth.

This is also an odd jape to make about the M18, for a number of reasons...
-The Claymore is very easy to use, even for a Soldier who is not well versed with it, and instructions hard to miss even when jacked up on adrenaline can save lives.
-The Australians, I believe, use the same Claymore as the Americans (although I can't claim to have ever personally seen an Australian Claymore)
-Indicating the "danger" side of a directional mine is not something limited to English-speaking militaries: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/Type_66_-_Chinese_Claymore_mine.jpg

Nevertheless a greater hive of villainy and scum there never has been since Mos Eisley. Queue now some arrogant retort about how much better the US is than everyone else. Considering I already know exactly how this conversation is going to pan out I really don't see it going anywhere. But please go ahead and share your opinions on how draining global resources to feed a nation with such a crass culture and gluttonous society is something we should all look up to and aspire towards...

I'll make it clear that not everything about the US is bad, but damn... You guys truly have no idea how the rest of the world views you. Not that you would care. It's like some form of "democratic" fascist state...

You predict "some arrogant retort about how much better the US is than everyone else" while blindly advocating Australian superiority all over these forums - you're not just a blowhard, you're a hypocrite. Nationalism is fine when you practice it, but not when others do the same?

Engage in knee-jerk anti-Americanism all you want, but you'll continue to soak in our exported culture all the same. As for how the world views us, it's not as bad as you seem to assume. Perceptions of a worldwide hatred for America is generally driven by a very loud, irrational minority, who are often fueled by the need for a scapegoat, or to mask insecurities about their own national identity.

If you want to debate American foreign policy, I'd be happy to. If you want to rant and froth at the mouth...


Faithfully,

-Paul the Paymaster

[wormcsa]

Not going to get sucked into the rabbit hole of Claeyt's nonsensical economics arguments again. One can go through and look at how many of his supporting links deal with average income as opposed to median income and how many of them support his premise that current incomes are down to pre-Reagan levels (and no Claeyt 1990s is not pre-Reagan.)

None of them

Copy and pasted bad stuff about the Contras, and US foreign policy.

You claimed the Sandinistas were not allowed to campaign, not that that US embargoed them, nor that the Contras threatened to recommence the war if they lost. As you can read in the article I posted, it is NOT true that Sandinistas were not allowed to campaign. As usual, what you posted does not support your claim. Also let's remember that you first claimed that the Sandinistas were not allowed to compete in the election to begin with.

Meh, I believe the people who told me about Jorb being on the mm vent when it happened.

Yes, because you are a moron.

[Jalpha]

The Australians, I believe, use the same Claymore as the Americans (although I can't claim to have ever personally seen an Australian Claymore)

They do.

blindly advocating Australian superiority all over these forums - you're not just a blowhard, you're a hypocrite. Nationalism is fine when you practice it, but not when others do the same?

Citation required.

Engage in knee-jerk anti-Americanism all you want, but you'll continue to soak in our exported culture all the same. As for how the world views us, it's not as bad as you seem to assume. Perceptions of a worldwide hatred for America is generally driven by a very loud, irrational minority, who are often fueled by the need for a scapegoat, or to mask insecurities about their own national identity.

You guys truly have no idea how the rest of the world views you. It's like some form of "democratic" fascist state...

If you want to debate American foreign policy, I'd be happy to. If you want to rant and froth at the mouth...

It is both ironic and hypocritical of you to say this. I think it's quite clear who is "frothing at the mouth" in this regard. It didn't take much at all to provoke a response reminiscent of a rabid dog. The best thing about the internet is how you can find a source to back up whatever it is that you believe.

Your international policy is of less concern to me than your national policy, which is the root cause of how your nation relates to others, and is thus perceived by them. I also think you are overstating my views but nonetheless...

Urban sprawl, decadent consumerism, a society which can only thrive as a result of waste and inefficiency. All to fund an endless cycle of debt. It wouldn't bother me so much if a majority of the rest of the world wasn't bombarded with your own ideals so often that they end up the base model to follow. The US is a great example of the things that are wrong with capitalist societies.

Is there really any point discussing this? People want what they want, and be damned if anyone is going to tell them there's a better way of doing things. Why change when you can screw everyone else over first before you spiral into decline?