7 17

Poor is a choice?

By Charlene9
Actions Follow Post Like
You must be a member of this group before commenting. Join Group

Post a comment Add Source Add Photo

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Poor is a choice? For some but not for everyone

Cutiebeauty Level 9 Oct 21, 2019

If it is, it is a poor choice.

Bobby9 Level 8 Oct 21, 2019

I’d say less of an active choice and more of a base requirement. Plenty of wealthy folks spend lots on humanitarian issues (I have plenty of issues with this). But they are addicted to the causes of poverty.

OwlInASack Level 8 Oct 21, 2019

The addiction is tax deductions..

@Charlene It is, and the lie of trickle down economics, and the corruption of political donations, and the lie that they somehow deserve the immensity of their wealth... etc.


I see this as another issue with many sides. My sister was once living on the street and has moved in with a brother. She has little money but didn't really care about her situation. I have known and know people who are poor and it is often a choice they have made consciously or unconsciously. It is not B & W and often very complicated.

JackPedigo Level 9 Oct 20, 2019


bobwjr Level 9 Oct 20, 2019

Hating the rich and blaming them for our failures is not a solution or policy. The poor is not the responsibility of the rich. If the rich commit wrong doing such as exploitation, law breaking.... the law and enforcement should prosecute them with the full extent of the law. Not otherwise. We cannot scapegoat financial success.

St-Sinner Level 8 Oct 20, 2019

What kind of Fucking Dream World do you live in ????

Law enforcement is ruthless on the poor, lenient on the rich. As well, laws—beginning with the U.S. Constitution—are designed to protect property owners, the same men who wrote the Constitution. It’s the poor who are scapegoated and underrepresented.

You should take the case to court, not to the border.

@St-Sinner What case?

Your complaints about the Law and Order or the laws if you have one. Else support law abiding and oppose illegal immigration.

It is called "not socialism"

@St-Sinner Law and order is the cry of the protected class. The great liberators of history disobeyed the laws to force the gatekeepers to relinquish their power to workers and the poor. Read A People’s History of the United States. Read the history of the Civil Rights Movement. Read anything except the tag lines in Fox News.

That is socialist thinking leaning communist. We will not allow changing the country from capitalism to either.

@St-Sinner I have no time to argue with regressive thinkers who hide behind false arguments and labels. Bye for now.

That might be fine if we lived in a world where all started off equally, if all had the same chances, if all wealth was created by hard work, initiative and entrepreneurial drive, and legally and fairly. But it is not. Class, inheritance, rigged systems of capital and governmental rules, grossly unfair taxation on worked rather than investment income, and the 'legal' shonkery of wealth elites through their lawyers and financial advisers, mean none of that is true. That is why we need genuine mixed economies, with taxation measures to balance wealth distribution, a public interest structure, call it government, to exercise some power to achieve public outcomes towards greater equity. It's not simple. Getting the balance right is hard. Yes, it is called Socialism, or more correctly democratic socialism. But the alternative is exactly what we are seeing: oligarchy and autocratic rule by wealth elites, for whom there is never enough wealth and power. Which side are you on?

Sadly you are in a small minority in the U.S.


The answer to the problem is "controlled capitalism", not entitlements to the poor or punishing the rich and success.

@St-Sinner troll

@St-Sinner you've already tried controlled capitalism your way. It failed. Time to try it the progressive way. FDR did it, to the extent possible then. He was so popular they had to make sure the 2 term rule would always be enforced. Trump might try to throw that out, with a few rigged elections from his rich friends.

@St-Sinner Stop parroting the Asswipe Republiturds . We paid for Anything we get in this Country with our taxes . That is Not a God Damned " entitlement " . Fuck Asswipe thinking like this .

You are conflating financial success with inordinate power. The more money you have the more votes in Congress you get. That is what tips the balance our fo whack and creates poverty and other ills of society. Federal governments do not need taxes for revenue and nor do they need to borrow. But they should use taxes to maintain or restore a balance.

No, not a troll. Just another non-fanatic and sensible thinker

That is only one view but not a popular view. Else we would have all you wish done already.

@ToolGuy Your opinion seems to show an extreme bias against the rich and is not grounded in reality. What you want is a punishment for being rich which will not happen because we are not a socialist country. America did not get to be the most powerful, advanced and rich nation with best amenities on the face of the Earth by being socialist. You have to look to Cuba for your dream come true.

@St-Sinner Yeah right. [cnn.com]


You said... "Federal governments do not need taxes for revenue and nor do they need to borrow. But they should use taxes to maintain or restore a balance."

Does that mean redistribution of wealth? Taking from the rich and giving to the poor?

@St-Sinner No. It does not mean that. It means making sure that the remaining Koch brother doesn’t buy Congress because he has so much wealth he can unbalance the free markets. For example: Billionaires unbalanced the free market system by persuading the POTUS — Clinton — to do away with Glass Steagall and congress refused to stop it. Then people are encouraged to buy houses they cannot afford and the mortgages are bundled into derivatives and sold around the world by the banksters. In a free for all did eat dog economy the poor suffer. Also the economy is tipped in favour of the FIRE sector making it harder for the real economy to acquire the funds it needs to grow and then the resulting inflation is fought by raising interest rates indiscriminately even on people NOT contributing to the inflation. The wealthy own the media and manufacture the consent of people to suffer austerity programmes including higher interest rates to fight inflation by trotting out idiot economists to sell the plan because they know that inflation is ALWAYS caused by workers asking for too much don’t you know. If the media were NOT owned by conglomerates, and Senators and Representatives were not owned by billionaires and POTUS was not owned by them, the balance might get restored. That is what Sanders is striving for. I saw it coming at the beginning of the last quarter of the last century and started writing about it then. Deregulation actually means opening up the economy to casino economics where speculation dominates and real production then suffers.

@ToolGuy How else do you restore a balance from the unequal taxes collected from both?

@St-Sinner There are no unequal taxes. You get rid of that notion and the notion that taxes are revenue. It isn’t except for cities and states. Nor should money be created with interest always attached to it. When you borrow money from the bank or use a credit card, where does the bank get the money it lends you? A crucial question that I believe yo have yet to answer.

Taxes should be used to restore balance or create balance. It is a complex process but starts with ending Citizens United. Ban political donations. Pay senators per vote they get perhaps. Set limits on political contributions. In Canada you cannot donate more than $1500 per year to a candidate or political party. Parties used to get a couple of dollars for each vote cast for their party which allowed them to spend more time on policy and less on fundraising but stupid Conservative governments ended that practice in a recent right-wing shift here..

Then let democratic discussion decide on the details. Restore Glass Steagall. Or install a new better version. Break up the monopolies. Tax corporate income. And Tax 100% of CEOs’ pay where it exceeds 11 Time or at most 20 times the median wage of the firm they work for. Disallow compensation packages that include shares in the company. Legislate that stakeholders have equal or more say in compensation as shareholders in the event of bankruptcy. Give favourable tax breaks to cooperative firms owned by the workers. Tax the shit out of shareholder owned firms in the FiRE sector. There is a lot to be done and could be done.

But this flies in the face of the Libertarian philosophy promulgated and funded by the Koch brothers in their support for the stupid Public Choice Theory that dominates your country’s politics and contaminates other countries’ politics. So be prepared for a dystopian future.

Did you watch the CNN clip above?

What you wrote is although fair and good ideas, that is mostly wishful thinking, not pragmatic. There are wonderful ideas but most have not broken out of books. I am for all sensible controls without keeping foot on anybody's throat or giving entitlements. Yours are far less pragmatic than what I am wishing:

  1. Abolish white glove health insurance plan for all members of Congress and White House
  2. No subsidized cafeteria or no subsidized anything in Congress
  3. Keep pays and benefits of all Congress and White House members on hold during government shutdown, not just federal workers
  4. Bring term limits to all members of Congress, maximum 2 terms
  5. Take away the Senate and House chairs' ability to stop bills from coming to the floor. Every bill must be put to vote
  6. Expand SCOTUS to introduce rotating appointments with no life long appointments
  7. Ban all revolving door roles of lobbyist to Congress or vice versa for at least 10 years
  8. No registered lobbyist can be appointed to a government office
  9. Make it mandatory to make presidential candidates' tax returns public
  10. Make nepotism laws more strict. President's family must be automatically disqualified to hold any office in the White House
  11. Introduce stronger ethics laws
  12. Make these bodies independent and make appointments of chairs non-political, every chair must serve two terms and cannot only be removed the act of Congress, not president - FCC, CDC, FAA, SEC
  13. Make voter ID law mandatory nationally

These are just government and democracy reforms. I have not talked about gun control etc. yet

Abolish Citizens vs United is a also a great idea but I know that not even 4 will get done in the my and the next generations' life time. I also want heavy monitoring to prevent financial excesses by the rich and powerful.

@St-Sinner Some of your ideas are less workable than mine. Mine have been tried in other countries and the US. You do not know your history or others’ histories. I would extend #1 to everybody. Other countries have. #2 is plain silly. Our elected reps work hard and long hours so need a place to eat. #3 works for me but it won’t matter if you let them keep the rich guys’ bribes. #4 may or may not be a good idea. It eliminates some good people. There is a learning curve. And it defies democracy. #5 is good. #6 maybe. #7 and 8 yes. #9 10 11 12 13 sure why not. But they do not deal with the problems of Citizen United and many other doable things.

Again either you are not reading right or I am not explaining enough. All I said about #2 is don't subsidize but you understood it as taking the whole cafeteria away? Can you please take the time to read?

@St-Sinner I did. I have no problem with subsidy. Penny wise pound foolish. But here is a Bernie Sanders is back video. You say that things are so wonderful in your country. He has the data.

I do not believe anything Bernie Sanders says. This man is not a democrat, knows himself that nothing he says can be accomplished, has not explained how the heck he plans to get all he says done without strong majorities the Senate and House, has not explained yet why the important infrastructure bill has not passed the Congress for 11 years, what have been his accomplishments on healthcare in his 45 years in Congress and most importantly why is he not running as an independent instead of stealing a platform that is not his?

He is good at hype, not at actions. He is a snake oil salesman. He is a hero of extreme left wingers, not mine.

Hey Sinner, you already believe in taking money from the rich and distributing it. As long as it is distributed for -
The military
Corporate bailouts
Subsidies and other rich dude lurks and perks
Security Services and their questionable operations
Other expenditure to the benefit of US Ruling Elite and its class structure.
... then you are ok with it, although most of this funding actually comes from working people.

What you are against is spending on
The environment
.. and anything of direct benefit to working people, who actually create the wealth in the first place.

So, it's not taking money from the rich you oppose, presumably, but taking it to spend on things the rich don't care about.

Classic right wing hypocritical thinking.




Actually - I don't think so. He genuinely believs this evil shite. He hasn't just drunk the coolaid, he's become a distributor and lead salesman.

There's a simple test for me on this: anyone who promotes Voter ID and refuses to recognise that this is massively anti-democ ratic remedy for a non-illness, just isn't worth debating with. After all - that's just fact and plenty of independent studies have shown there is no voter fraud issue in the US (nor the UK where our new PM has latched onto this autocratic way of excluding legitimate voters). But the remedy to the non-issue is spectacularly successful at stopping left wing votes.

It's why this isn't a level playing field and why it is entirely reasonable for us to consider much more extreme measures against these folks who wills top at nothing to get power. And who demonstrably do not believe in democracy at all - though they bandy the word around fairly freely, hypocritical, lying, murderous wankers that they are.

You are mixing apples and oranges.

@St-Sinner no, I'm exposing right wing hypocrisy for which there is no reply from the right except 'fear socialism! unless it's socialism we believe in."

You talking the Right Wing Conspiracy... similar to what Hillary Clinton talked about when there were rumors of Bill Clinton's indiscretions with women outside and inside the White House? Similarly, you are sure that this conspiracy may not prove to be the truth, right?

Ohhhh.... it was only the right wing conspiracy, not the truth. ... "I did not have an affair with that 'woman"

@St-Sinner I said right wing HYPOCRISY! "Conspiracy" is a different word. Look it up. You are a Troll.

We are all hypocrites but just don't know it or deny it. All progressives yelling for rights of illegal immigrants will never open their doors for one, nor would give personal time to help or nor ever stand up against a clear discrimination against an immigrant colleague at work. We say one thing but do another. It exists on both sides. No one can say... Holier than Thou


True dat!

ToolGuy Level 8 Oct 20, 2019
Write Comment