NationStates Jolt Archive

Really, US is a terrible country. In my opinion a country should be rated on how it treats its poor. And senior citizens are left in the dirt. Not to mention that gov. is 3 TRILLION IN ThE HOLE to China mostly.

Judge the poor on how they treat themselves. Also many of the "poor" in the US, aren't very poor:

# Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
# Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
# Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
# The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
# Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
# Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
# Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
# Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Poor? Hardly. Few people in the US are actually struggling to eat. The USA is a great country.

The link. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm)

Although you're a retarted true, it sure is stupid that the US government spends money they don't have. Living on debt is eventually going to cost them some day.

Judge the poor on how they treat themselves. Also many of the "poor" in the US, aren't very poor:



Poor? Hardly. Few people in the US are actually struggling to eat. The USA is a great country.

The link. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm)
The problem is, that they live too large. Technically, they can't afford it, thus they borrow money. LOAAAADS of money, from other country's, including China. Wierd isn't it? It's all fine and dandy to lend lots of money from a half-communist country wich illegally occupies another nation, tortures people etc but oooo nooo we can't trade with the evil Cuba. You know how that's called: hypocritical. Not so great afterall, hmm?
The US health system is, simply sad, pretty damn shitty as well.

Disclaimer: the opinion above is ofcourse just about the US politics and politicians.

"Judge a country" with circumspection, not purely on the size of its welfare state.

The poor are entitled to precious little help unless they attempt to improve their own situation.

The problem is, that they live too large. Technically, they can't afford it, thus they borrow money. LOAAAADS of money, from other country's, including China. Wierd isn't it? It's all fine and dandy to lend lots of money from a half-communist country wich illegally occupies another nation, tortures people etc but oooo nooo we can't trade with the evil Cuba. You know how that's called: hypocritical. Not so great afterall, hmm?

Disclaimer: the opinion above is ofcourse just about the US politics and politicians.

...

So, let me get this straight: Most, if not all, poor people own cars, their own house,etc, and are neck-deep in debt? And they get that debt from CHINA?? Well, you keep on dreaming bud, because the only people borrowing from China is the government. Also the ones deepest in debt.

Poor people who do nothing to improve their own conditions do not deserve my tax dollars for aid.

...

So, let me get this straight: Most, if not all, poor people own cars, their own house,etc, and are neck-deep in debt? And they get that debt from CHINA?? Well, you keep on dreaming bud, because the only people borrowing from China is the government. Also the ones deepest in debt.


okay, gov borrows from china, people borrow from government

US is loaning out borrowed money which is China's
So, one could say that Americans are getting loans from China

okay, gov borrows from china, people borrow from government

US is loaning out borrowed money which is China's
So, one could say that Americans are getting loans from China

People don't borrow from the government, they borrow from private banks. You DO live in the USa, right?:confused:

The problem is, that they live too large. Technically, they can't afford it, thus they borrow money. LOAAAADS of money, from other country's, including China. Wierd isn't it? It's all fine and dandy to lend lots of money from a half-communist country wich illegally occupies another nation, tortures people etc.
The US health system is, simply sad, pretty damn shitty as well.

Disclaimer: the opinion above is of course just about the US politics and politicians.

Good point there. I would also add that not too long ago the U.S was at war with communism and outwardly would not have any dealings with them, but now it stays alive by borrowing billions and billions of dollars from them? I think this is as you said hypocritical.

What's with the Cockney slang in the poll?

...

So, let me get this straight: Most, if not all, poor people own cars, their own house,etc, and are neck-deep in debt? And they get that debt from CHINA?? Well, you keep on dreaming bud, because the only people borrowing from China is the government. Also the ones deepest in debt.
"There own house"? The bank owns the house, and people borrow the money frm the bank. Fact is that the American public consumes a LOT, réally a lot, way to much actually. The US balance is pretty screwed up, much more is imported then they export and money is borrowed to keep importing.

I know there is a better way of explaining, I dropped economics, maybe someone can explain the problem the US economy has I try to adress better then I do atm?

"There own house"? The bank owns the house, and people borrow the money frm the bank. Fact is that the American public consumes a LOT, réally a lot, way to much actually. The US balance is pretty screwed up, much more is imported then they export and money is borrowed to keep importing.

I know there is a better way of explaining, I dropped economics, maybe someone can explain the problem the US economy has I try to adress better then I do atm?
:rolleyes:
*Clears throat*
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes.

Own their own homes meaning THEY own it, not the bank.

Own their own homes meaning THEY own it, not the bank.
Ever heard of mortgages? =

Really, US is a terrible country. In my opinion a country should be rated on how it treats its poor. And senior citizens are left in the dirt. Not to mention that gov. is 3 TRILLION IN ThE HOLE to China mostly.

what makes America America and not europe is we fill it is the individual's responsibility to take care of them selves not the goverment.

but hey lets get more debt to china trying to take care of out poor.

I personally know peopl that are receiving food stamps from the government to help them yet they also drive very nice cars, have Large TVs, Cable, Dirt Bikes, and many other toys. I think that before we say the US is not taking care of the poor, we would need to define what poor is.

I know there are homeless people here (I would say that would qualify as poor) , but many of these people are mentally ill and avoid the people that would help them. Others are just trying to live off the grid. There are many avenues to get help in the US if you need and want it.

I know there are homeless people here (I would say that would qualify as poor) , but many of these people are mentally ill and avoid the people that would help them.

*does not know whether to laugh or cry*

*does not know whether to laugh or cry*

In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court ruled that you can't force a mentally ill person to get help unless you rule that they are a danger to themselves and others (an immediate danger).

The doors swung wide, and hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people were released onto the streets.

Thank the ACLU for our inability to help mentally ill people who avoid help.

A paranoid schizophrenic isn't going to go to the government for help.

They'll starve or freeze to death first.

Really, US is a terrible country. In my opinion a country should be rated on how it treats its poor. And senior citizens are left in the dirt. Not to mention that gov. is 3 TRILLION IN ThE HOLE to China mostly.

so what does leaving senior citizens in the dirt have to do with the (vastly understated) national debt?

what does any of that have to do with how the government treats poor people?

Well let's see where you went wrong....

In my opinion a country should be rated on how it treats its poor.
Ah, there we go.

First of all, let me just say you're allowed to have your wrong opinion.

Second of all let me just say your opinion is wrong.

America is not a social-democratic-welfare-state, and if it was, it wouldn't be America as that idea is highly un-American.

May I interest you in a ticket to Sweden where you can join the brainwashed masses who will know neither success nor failure, but rather a constant life-long mediocrity.

In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court ruled that you can't force a mentally ill person to get help unless you rule that they are a danger to themselves and others (an immediate danger).

The doors swung wide, and hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people were released onto the streets.

Thank the ACLU for our inability to help mentally ill people who avoid help.

A paranoid schizophrenic isn't going to go to the government for help.

They'll starve or freeze to death first.

There is also the HUGE problem of underfunding of mental health programs. It's not just that you can't force them to get help unless they are suicidal or homicidal, it's now that they can't get help unless those conditions are present. I know many people who have had to lie about wanting to off themselves just to get in to see a doctor to get proper medication.

Really, US is a terrible country. In my opinion a country should be rated on how it treats its poor. And senior citizens are left in the dirt. Not to mention that gov. is 3 TRILLION IN ThE HOLE to China mostly.

Right. That's why there is Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps, social security, etc etc etc.

We are not all entitled to plasma TVs and Lamborghinis.

There is also the HUGE problem of underfunding of mental health programs. It's not just that you can't force them to get help unless they are suicidal or homicidal, it's now that they can't get help unless those conditions are present. I know many people who have had to lie about wanting to off themselves just to get in to see a doctor to get proper medication.

The funding plummeted at the same time as the Supreme Court ruling.

Honestly, if you're running a public mental health facility, and you can't keep people for more than a few days, you're not going to be able to help them much. A lot of depressed people need a few weeks to get stabilized on meds in a controlled environment, and unless they say they're going to off themselves, they won't get the funds.

I really think that it needs to go back to the ability to involuntarily rehab some people - not all the way to the past, but there's a better balance somewhere that would ensure that people get care who need it.

Ever heard of mortgages? =

Ever heard of making your final payment on a mortgage? As in, you own it in full?

In the early 1980s, the Supreme Court ruled that you can't force a mentally ill person to get help unless you rule that they are a danger to themselves and others (an immediate danger).

The doors swung wide, and hundreds of thousands of mentally ill people were released onto the streets.

Something to that effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalization) happened in Canada as well. The hilarious/sad part of the post was the assertion that homeless people would refuse social help, which is outright ignorance.

Ever heard of making your final payment on a mortgage? As in, you own it in full?
So 46% of the US public payed there mortgage? Then I wonder where the mortgage crisis comes from, probably from the other 54%.
In recent years, the primary economic concerns have centered on: high national debt ($9 trillion), high corporate debt ($9 trillion), high mortgage debt (over $10 trillion as of 2005 year-end), high unfunded Medicare liability ($30 trillion), high unfunded Social Security liability ($12 trillion), and high external debt (amount owed to foreign lenders), high trade deficits, and a serious deterioration in the United States net international investment position (NIIP) (-24% of GDP).
Not so great afterall, or is that just me?

So 46% of the US public payed there mortgage? Then I wonder where the mortgage crisis comes from, probably from the other 54%.

So what you are saying is that NO ONE owns their home. And that when people say they OWN their home, they really mean they don't.

My God, that should be a shock to my parents, who have not paid a mortgage payment in the past fifteen years. Oh, and to my aunts and uncles, who haven't for twenty or more years.

Yes, they're rich, richer beyond your wildest...

Oh, wait...

So 46% of the US public payed there mortgage? Then I wonder where the mortgage crisis comes from, probably from the other 54%.

The mortgage crisis where .16% of all mortgages are in foreclosure? I would assume that it was from .16% of people living above their means.

http://www.suntimes.com/business/currency/951372,CST-FIN-wallet15WEB3.article

As to the US, they do a bit for the poor, they could do more. But there are so many more ways to judge a state, let's be honest.

So what you are saying is that NO ONE owns their home.

He's a communist, trying to undermine our beloved concept of property! Get 'im!

all the great dawn is doing is making the claim that if you have a mortgage you dont really own your own home.

what that has to do with anything i dont know.

That was bassicly all really, I just wanted to say that a lot of people don't really own there houses because they borrow the money from the bank. That's it.
Anyway, what I asked first, about the economic problems the US has, can someone else explain it better then I did?

That was bassicly all really, I just wanted to say that a lot of people don't really own there houses because they borrow the money from the bank. That's it.
Anyway, what I asked first, about the economic problems the US has, can someone else explain it better then I did?
I did, Kat did, Smunkee did, WHO ELSE DO YOU NEED!?!?!?

Let's judge the US on how it does everything. From this perspective we can say it does some good and some bad things.

Maybe we should better judge US by how it treats/threatens tother nations (poor nations if you will), not its own people....

just a suggestion

Let's judge the US on how it does everything. From this perspective we can say it does some good and some bad things.

Don't be so fucking ridiculous. Taking things to such obscene extremes only clouds the issue!

I did, Kat did, Smunkee did, WHO ELSE DO YOU NEED!?!?!?
No you did not? I mean explain this:
In recent years, the primary economic concerns have centered on: high national debt ($9 trillion), high corporate debt ($9 trillion), high mortgage debt (over $10 trillion as of 2005 year-end), high unfunded Medicare liability ($30 trillion), high unfunded Social Security liability ($12 trillion), and high external debt (amount owed to foreign lenders), high trade deficits, and a serious deterioration in the United States net international investment position (NIIP) (-24% of GDP).
I kinda failed to explain how that works properly, that's what I've been asking.

No you did not? I mean explain this:

I kinda failed to explain how that works properly, that's what I've been asking.

America has high national debt. Most of our citizens are in debt. What do you want? You want me to explain why people are in debt? They live above their income and borrow money. That's why people are in debt.

America has high national debt. Most of our citizens are in debt. What do you want? You want me to explain why people are in debt? They live above their income and borrow money. That's why people are in debt.
Look at page 1, what I tried to explain there, but kinda failed in doing so.

And in other news, water is wet.

Really, US is a terrible country. In my opinion a country should be rated on how it treats its poor. And senior citizens are left in the dirt. Not to mention that gov. is 3 TRILLION IN ThE HOLE to China mostly.

And you have terrible grammar.

Really, we are a terrible country. In my opinion a country should be rated on how it treats its poor. And senior citizens are left in the dirt. Not to mention that gov. is 3 TRILLION IN ThE HOLE to China mostly.

Fixed. (New Limacon realizes he was referring to the US, not "us." New Limacon was joking.)

Look at page 1, what I tried to explain there, but kinda failed in doing so.

Yes, and I explained the "mortgage crisis" is non-existent other than in the minds of people led around by the media.

America has a very low unemployment rate, a very low rate of people in actual poverty, a very low rate of people who are actually on the streets homeless and a very low rate of people in foreclosure. We aren't doing as well as usual, but usually we do outstandingly well.

People are in debt. The government is in debt. We are spending an alarming rate of money on a war that won't end, and people are making shitty decisions with their finances. None of this speaks to how the US treats their poor, which happens to be the vague subject of the thread.

It's still better to be poor in America than it is to be rich in many parts of the world.

Yes, and I explained the "mortgage crisis" is non-existent other than in the minds of people led around by the media.

America has a very low unemployment rate, a very low rate of people in actual poverty, a very low rate of people who are actually on the streets homeless and a very low rate of people in foreclosure. We aren't doing as well as usual, but usually we do outstandingly well.

People are in debt. The government is in debt. We are spending an alarming rate of money on a war that won't end, and people are making shitty decisions with their finances. None of this speaks to how the US treats their poor, which happens to be the vague subject of the thread.

It's still better to be poor in America than it is to be rich in many parts of the world.
I wouldn't call being in huge debt doing good really. But it's true it's better to be poor in the US, then in China or India.

I wouldn't call being in huge debt doing good really. But it's true it's better to be poor in the US, then in China or India.

I don't think being in debt is good at all. However, many other countries are in debt and they have higher rates of poverty, unemployment, homelessness, etc.

It depends on what you are looking at.

I can't explain the debt other than it sucks. Many other things do not suck as much as they do elsewhere.

Our unemployment rate is 4.8% when I took economics 5% was considered full employment. Sweden's unemployment rate is 5.6%, Ireland is at 4.3% the UK is at 2.9% and France is at 8.7%

One of these things is not like the others.

Comparatively we are doing okay. Things are not as bad as the media would lead you to believe.

I don't think being in debt is good at all. However, many other countries are in debt and they have higher rates of poverty, unemployment, homelessness, etc.

It depends on what you are looking at.

I can't explain the debt other than it sucks. Many other things do not suck as much as they do elsewhere.

Our unemployment rate is 4.8% when I took economics 5% was considered full employment. Sweden's unemployment rate is 5.6%, Ireland is at 4.3% the UK is at 2.9% and France is at 8.7%

One of these things is not like the others.

Comparatively we are doing okay. Things are not as bad as the media would lead you to believe.


the UK must count up unemployment differently than others do. 2.9% means that people who dont want to work have jobs.

I don't think being in debt is good at all. However, many other countries are in debt and they have higher rates of poverty, unemployment, homelessness, etc.

It depends on what you are looking at.

I can't explain the debt other than it sucks. Many other things do not suck as much as they do elsewhere.

Our unemployment rate is 4.8% when I took economics 5% was considered full employment. Sweden's unemployment rate is 5.6%, Ireland is at 4.3% the UK is at 2.9% and France is at 8.7%

One of these things is not like the others.

Comparatively we are doing okay. Things are not as bad as the media would lead you to believe.
Those countries also have friendlier welfare laws, at least France and Sweden do. While there may be fewer people working, the unemployed are not necessarily as badly off as the American unemployed.

Your shipment of fail has arrived, please sign here.

Anyway, what I asked first, about the economic problems the US has, can someone else explain it better then I did?
Jawohl.

"The US has the same economic problems as every country"

Those countries also have friendlier welfare laws, at least France and Sweden do. While there may be fewer people working, the unemployed are not necessarily as badly off as the American unemployed.

The American unemployed are better off than the unemployed in Mexico. What's your point?

America has welfare. You can get it, you just can't live on it forever, and btw, what kind of idiot would want to?! They feed you, give you a check, subsidize your housing and utilities, pay for your health care......it's just not the ghetto fabulous life that people believe they should become accustomed to.

Often times the unemployed on welfare are doing better than the employed who don't qualify.

I thought a new report showed us at 5.5% unemployment? Did I just hear it wrong?

The American unemployed are better off than the unemployed in Mexico. What's your point?

America has welfare. You can get it, you just can't live on it forever, and btw, what kind of idiot would want to?! They feed you, give you a check, subsidize your housing and utilities, pay for your health care......it's just not the ghetto fabulous life that people believe they should become accustomed to.

I'm just saying that the unemployment rate isn't always a good way to compare the condition of a country's poor. It makes sense to compare the unemployment rate of the U.S. in 1980 to the rate in 1990, because to be unemployed in both those years meant roughly the same thing. But to be unemployed in France is much different than it is in the U.S., so the unemployment rates are not always comparable.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7440104.stm

I don't think being in debt is good at all. However, many other countries are in debt and they have higher rates of poverty, unemployment, homelessness, etc.

It depends on what you are looking at.

I can't explain the debt other than it sucks. Many other things do not suck as much as they do elsewhere.

Our unemployment rate is 4.8% when I took economics 5% was considered full employment. Sweden's unemployment rate is 5.6%, Ireland is at 4.3% the UK is at 2.9% and France is at 8.7%

One of these things is not like the others.

Comparatively we are doing okay. Things are not as bad as the media would lead you to believe.
Wasn't the US unemployment rate 5.5%? Or am I mixing up things again?

I'm just saying that the unemployment rate isn't always a good way to compare the condition of a country's poor. It makes sense to compare the unemployment rate of the U.S. in 1980 to the rate in 1990, because to be unemployed in both those years meant roughly the same thing. But to be unemployed in France is much different than it is in the U.S., so the unemployment rates are not always comparable.
The national debt has nothing to do with how the US treats it's poor either, and yet it's constantly being brought up.

I thought a new report showed us at 5.5% unemployment? Did I just hear it wrong?

My numbers may be old. I've had trouble keeping up lately.

It's still not too bad.

My numbers may be old. I've had trouble keeping up lately.
No worries.
It's still not too bad.
Agreed. That's still better than almost every European country.

The national debt has nothing to do with how the US treats it's poor either, and yet it's constantly being brought up.

Sorry, I didn't see that. But you're right, that's wrong, too.

The thing that gets me is that US workers work more hours than any other industrialized country yet we are less efficient.

We are more stressed from working longer hours and getting much less vacation time and we have less free time for ourselves as we get home from work exhausted and have to do chores and cook and clean. Since we are two income households more often than not anymore.

Inflation is rising at a faster pace than we've known for along time while wages have been stagnant so our extra work still equals less stuff that we can afford.

The thing that gets me is that US workers work more hours than any other industrialized country yet we are less efficient.

We are more stressed from working longer hours and getting much less vacation time and we have less free time for ourselves as we get home from work exhausted and have to do chores and cook and clean. Since we are two income households more often than not anymore.

Inflation is rising at a faster pace than we've known for along time while wages have been stagnant so our extra work still equals less stuff that we can afford.

... Source please? I'm not believing half of what you say. Especially about vacation time and work time.

Inflation is rising at a faster pace than we've known for along time while wages have been stagnant so our extra work still equals less stuff that we can afford.
Same everywhere.

Agreed. That's still better than almost every European country.
All Westren European you mean? Do all country's use the same way of counting the unemployed? Where are the sources? Questions like that do matter when you say that :)

All Westren European you mean? Do all country's use the same way of counting the unemployed? Where are the sources? Questions like that :)

The US doesnt has much unemployement.... their jails take care of that. If every jailed person in Europe were to be free and the same happened in the US... the rates of unemployement in the US would double the ones from Europe.

LEsson to be learned:

Europeans should start to send more people to jail

All Westren European you mean?
And even more so than in the East and Balkans.
Do all country's use the same way of counting the unemployed?
No.
Where are the sources?
JobCentres or whatever they're called elsewhere.

... Source please? I'm not believing half of what you say. Especially about vacation time and work time.

most other industrialized countries get about 6 weeks on average of vacation time where the US gets about 2 weeks on average.


sources for work time, inflation and the like
http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2003-12-16-hours-cover_x.htm
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/08/30/ilo.study/
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/15/business/usecon.php
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0319/p01s01-usec.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24127314/
http://www.hrmguide.net/usa/worklife/unused_vacation.htm
http://www.thinkandask.com/2005/10191vacations.html

Really, US is a terrible country. In my opinion a country should be rated on how it treats its poor. And senior citizens are left in the dirt. Not to mention that gov. is 3 TRILLION IN ThE HOLE to China mostly.

I'm a retired senior citizen, I'm poor. I own my own home, it's paid off so I have no mortgage. My income, after taxes is slightly more than $21,000/annum. I have health insurance, dental insurance and vision care insurance. When I'm 66 (a matter of a mere 5 years), I'll take my Social Security retirement and be even better off. I won't say I'm typical, I may be slightly better off than most - it's because of - gasp, choke, dare I say it - planning.

The nice thing about capitalism is that you can work and plan and have a decent retirement, but it does require some thinking ahead.

The bad thing about capitalism is that sometimes there's a run of bad luck and people need help.

That's why the US has - read my lips little boy - a regulated capitalist economy. A regulated capitalist economy makes allowances for things like bad luck and economic downturns, even recessions.

That's why, even now, the poor in the US are better off than 90% of the poor in the rest of the world.

Oh, and for the record, the government form is a republic. The economy is regulated capitalism. Capitalism is not a form of government.

I hope this isn't another trolling thread like your disastrous Christianity thread.

And even more so than in the East and Balkans.
Yeap, thanks Cold War ;)

No.
Then you can't compare that easely, right?

JobCentres or whatever they're called elsewhere.
I guess that'll do.

Yeap, thanks Cold War ;)
Not really. "Thanks amazingly corrupt and generally shite governments" would be a more accurate claim, especially regarding the Balkans.
Then you can't compare that easely, right?
Obviously not.
I guess that'll do.
Uhu, and you'll get the same figures as any government will give you.

I thought a new report showed us at 5.5% unemployment? Did I just hear it wrong?

I think 5.8% this morning actually. Which really is nothing to be upset about.

In 1933 the unemployment rate was 25.2%, that is something to cry about.

In 1982 unemployment topped at 10.8% when Reagan took office, it was down to 5.4% when he left office and we were thrilled.

I don't know what all the whining is about really, we are coming off of a peak decade but certainly are not in danger of recession as we have endured before. When the prime rate reaches 20% as it did in 1981 under the illustrious Carter then we can all begin to cry for real.

Btw what is the big issue with debt? Using money to make money through investment (such as a home) is good for the economy. It puts money to work and working money feeds the economy. Money is a product just like anything else, it isn't healthy for it to be sitting on a shelf somewhere collecting lint. Why do people have this crazy idea that it shouldn't be borrowed? If everyone is making money on said money what is the issue?

Isn't it really that those who default on debt are the problem? Not the concept of debt.

Correct me if I am wrong.:confused:

I think 5.8% this morning actually. Which really is nothing to be upset about.

In 1933 the unemployment rate was 25.2%, that is something to cry about.

In 1982 unemployment topped at 10.8% when Reagan took office, it was down to 5.4% when he left office and we were thrilled.

I don't know what all the whining is about really, we are coming off of a peak decade but certainly are not in danger of recession as we have endured before. When the prime rate reaches 20% as it did in 1981 under the illustrious Carter then we can all begin to cry for real.
I tried to tell them. They won't listen to me.

Btw what is the big issue with debt? Using money to make money through investment (such as a home) is good for the economy. It puts money to work and working money feeds the economy. Money is a product just like anything else, it isn't healthy for it to be sitting on a shelf somewhere collecting lint. Why do people have this crazy idea that it shouldn't be borrowed? If everyone is making money on said money what is the issue?

Isn't it really that those who default on debt are the problem? Not the concept of debt.

Correct me if I am wrong.:confused:

As a financial planner I've seen too many defaults. I firmly believe the borrower is the slave to the lender, because I've seen it umpteen million times. I am anti-debt, except for possibly a house, and only then when the mortgage payment isn't more than 25% of your net income and it's financed for less than 20 years.

I tried to tell them. They won't listen to me.



As a financial planner I've seen too many defaults. I firmly believe the borrower is the slave to the lender, because I've seen it umpteen million times. I am anti-debt, except for possibly a house, and only then when the mortgage payment isn't more than 25% of your net income and it's financed for less than 20 years.

I agree with you completely regarding investment debt. A home, even a car (it takes you to work etc). These pay for themselves.

Debt to hit the Bahamas for a good tan is stupid, just as most all plastic debt is stupid. But, I believe it doesn't have to be stupid, plastic dealers have made the concept so completely obscene it is time someone sat down on them. Sharking is a crime.

:)

I am Canadian, please do not insult me again like that.
Québecois?

And you have terrible grammar.



Fixed. (New Limacon realizes he was referring to the US, not "us." New Limacon was joking.)

I am Canadian, please do not insult me again like that.

I agree with you completely regarding investment debt. A home, even a car (it takes you to work etc). These pay for themselves.

Debt to hit the Bahamas for a good tan is stupid, just as most all plastic debt is stupid. But, I believe it doesn't have to be stupid, plastic dealers have made the concept so completely obscene it is time someone sat down on them. Sharking is a crime.

:)

I actually don't condone financing cars even, they lose value to quickly. They aren't an investment.

I actually don't condone financing cars even, they lose value to quickly. They aren't an investment.


They are if you work farther away than you can walk or ride a bike. ;)

I didn't say 5.5% was bad or the end of the world. I was just correcting a number that I thought I heard was wrong.

Don't lump me in with the 'they' who wont listen to you and think the US is an all encompassing evil.

There are good things about the US and it's economy and things that can be improved. There are people who are victims of scammers and those who are victims of their own stupidity.

I didn't say 5.5% was bad or the end of the world. I was just correcting a number that I thought I heard was wrong.

Don't lump me in with the 'they' who wont listen to you and think the US is an all encompassing evil.

There are good things about the US and it's economy and things that can be improved. There are people who are victims of scammers and those who are victims of their own stupidity.


I didn't mean to imply you were a 'they'. My bad, I just jumped in on the unemployment figure as I had just finished reading an article on today's rate. Sorry I wasn't very clear.

I actually don't condone financing cars even, they lose value to quickly. They aren't an investment.

That depends on if you use your car for work and if the used car you buy with cash turns out to be a money drain from expensive repairs. Like say it was a jeep. They are known to break down a lot of the repairs are supposedly very expensive.

They are if you work farther away than you can walk or ride a bike. ;)

I should have said they aren't a good investment. They only lose value.

A car in some areas might be a necessity, but it's never necessary to finance it.

I should have said they aren't a good investment. They only lose value.

A car in some areas might be a necessity, but it's never necessary to finance it.

Bingo I absolutely agree with that. I haven't financed a car since I was 16, it only took one to know not to do it ever again. I pay cash, always buy used and never over insure the dumb things. But necessity to get you to the source of making money is definately a tool worth having. =)

Yeah, we here in the U.S. have our fair share of problems, but so does every other country.
We're free to do as we please; we buy what we want, and with a little elbow grease, we live the way we want.
You work hard, you are rewarded.
Except for the sad few cases of horrible, cripplingly bad luck, but sometimes there's just nothing we can do.
My family would be classified as quite poor.
But Habitat for Humanity has built us a nice house, with 3 bedrooms, a bathroom (and a 'half bathroom' in mom's room), central heating and air, and all the necessary 'equipment' (i.e. oven, fridge, sinks, washer, dryer).
In three months Mom will have her car paid off.
I have a sufficient computer (even capable of some gaming =D),
I have a 360, I have a PS2, and I have a 26" HDTV. Of course, I bought this all with a job I held myself (recently quit).
My friend could be called poor, yet he's opening a freaking store, selling video games (with a franchise).
I've lived here all my life, and except for the horrible pollution in my home area here, I'd never want to move.

Bingo I absolutely agree with that. I haven't financed a car since I was 16, it only took one to know not to do it ever again. I pay cash, always buy used and never over insure the dumb things. But necessity to get you to the source of making money is definately a tool worth having. =)

My $75 clunker got me to and from work long enough to save up $1000 for a clunker that got me to and fro long enough to save up $3000 and so on.

My current car is ugly and old, but reliable and paid for. haha.

I didn't mean to imply you were a 'they'. My bad, I just jumped in on the unemployment figure as I had just finished reading an article on today's rate. Sorry I wasn't very clear.

too late - you're a bad person

too late - you're a bad person

Dang I thought I had you fooled for sure! ;)

I figured you out when I saw that you were a big fish too lazy to take a swim around the pond to see what size it was.


LOL, I know the pond is small, it's the big fish that don't. I am but a wee little fish. ;)

Dang I thought I had you fooled for sure! ;)

I figured you out when I saw that you were a big fish too lazy to take a swim around the pond to see what size it was.

Although you're a retarted true, it sure is stupid that the US government spends money they don't have. Living on debt is eventually going to cost them some day.

Much like debt is eventually going to cost the average person when they do not plan for emergencies.

So 46% of the US public payed there mortgage? Then I wonder where the mortgage crisis comes from, probably from the other 54%.

Not so great afterall, or is that just me?

Its just you. Remember folks, the Middle Class has been dissapearing due to their over borrowing and then not being able to pay people back thus losing their homes and cars in the process.

So 46% of the US public payed there mortgage? Then I wonder where the mortgage crisis comes from, probably from the other 54%.


I don't think it ties so much to an increase in mortgage failures it ties more into the interest rates have been low for so long and the dollars has dropped in value so much (because of the low interest rates) that the profit margin of banks was able to deal with a small increase of mortgage failures.

I tried to tell them. They won't listen to me.



As a financial planner I've seen too many defaults. I firmly believe the borrower is the slave to the lender, because I've seen it umpteen million times. I am anti-debt, except for possibly a house, and only then when the mortgage payment isn't more than 25% of your net income and it's financed for less than 20 years.

You sound like Dave Ramsey :)

You sound like Dave Ramsey :)

:D Personal friend.

FYI, the means used to produce that unemployment "rate" have varied over time, and it's a heavily modified (and relatively complicated) figure to derive.

Some people might remember a little period the US went through in the early 0Xs where the unemployment rate actually dropped not because people were finding jobs, but they'd been out of work for too long to count as "in the job market."

FYI, the means used to produce that unemployment "rate" have varied over time, and it's a heavily modified (and relatively complicated) figure to derive.

Some people might remember a little period the US went through in the early 0Xs where the unemployment rate actually dropped not because people were finding jobs, but they'd been out of work for too long to count as "in the job market."

I remember that. Unemployment figures only count those who aren't working and actively looking for a job. The administration tried to tout it as the market improving and unemployment dropping, when, in reality, the situation was so bad that people just quit looking

All I know is that if the government wasn't so busy giving my money to people that don't earn it, I would probably be able to actually afford health insurance for me and my family on my own.

Instead, I work 40+ hours a week, barely make ends meet, while people who can't pay use the ER at the hospitals around here as primary care. the hospital never sees a dime, and the cost of healthcare goes up. Which makes insurance go up. And it sure looks like a disproportionate number are not from this country or below whatever the government deems as "the poverty line".

but because I work hard for a living and try to advance myself by my own hand, I apparently make too much money for the government to give me a d*** thing. Good thing I was a medic so I can do all but the most serious medical treatment for my family myself.

Socialism doesn't work when it favors the parasites of society over those who contribute.

All I know is that if the government wasn't so busy giving my money to people that don't earn it, I would probably be able to actually afford health insurance for me and my family on my own.

Instead, I work 40+ hours a week, barely make ends meet, while people who can't pay use the ER at the hospitals around here as primary care....
It would be cheaper if they got primary care funded through something other than the ER, no?

The US health system is, simply sad, pretty damn shitty as well.

Umm, actually, I'm pretty sure that the quality of care is generally superior in the USA, than in countries with nationalized healthcare.

Umm, actually, I'm pretty sure that the quality of care is generally superior in the USA, than in countries with nationalized healthcare.

Newer Burmecia on the subject (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13758152&postcount=62).

It would be cheaper if they got primary care funded through something other than the ER, no?

not for them. Many don't ever pay.

If you're talking about having the taxpayers pay for it all, well... just look at the quality (or more appropriately, lack of) of Canada's system. then, not only do you get the government taking it out of your taxes automatically, but you get too little care too late, and people abusing and clogging the system on top of it.

the solution is cutting the cost of the care itself - things like tort reform, better and cheaper ways to manufacture cutting edge technology, etc. Essentially, reduce the overhead cost of medical care. I know it can work because you'd be surprised how filthy rich hospitals are getting just off of going digital with diagnostic imaging. Sure, its a little more up front, but the drop in every day operating cost is HUGE.

not for them. Many don't ever pay.

If you're talking about having the taxpayers pay for it all, well... just look at the quality (or more appropriately, lack of) of Canada's system. then, not only do you get the government taking it out of your taxes automatically, but you get too little care too late, and people abusing and clogging the system on top of it.

the solution is cutting the cost of the care itself - things like tort reform, better and cheaper ways to manufacture cutting edge technology, etc. Essentially, reduce the overhead cost of medical care. I know it can work because you'd be surprised how filthy rich hospitals are getting just off of going digital with diagnostic imaging. Sure, its a little more up front, but the drop in every day operating cost is HUGE.
Studies suggest Canadians are getting better health results. The Canadian gov't, I believe, is dumping less money per capita into their system, curiously enough. It's not as if the US doesn't spend enough money on health care, it's just...

... spent in a manner that proves inefficient for the population as a whole. And yes, there are lots of ways to reduce the cost of health care.

The poor refuse help.

They'll take those welfare checks, sure, but they buy video games and drugs with that money. We offer them help finding jobs, we give them a chance to receive a better education by opening countless community colleges and offering GEDs.

They who refuse help are those who are to be judged.

Really, US is a terrible country. In my opinion a country should be rated on how it treats its poor. And senior citizens are left in the dirt. Not to mention that gov. is 3 TRILLION IN ThE HOLE to China mostly.

yeah, know your facts before you fling these "facts" around.

I think that welfare should be done away with completly.


But that's just me. I'm not a big fan of parasites.

I think that welfare should be done away with completly.


But that's just me. I'm not a big fan of parasites.

What would you do with the children that welfare is aimed at? Should we do something about those who don't pay a certain amount in for the benefit of police, the military, and the criminal justice system? They are after all not paying for what they are getting.

My views are somewhere along the lines of this: http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Eeandersn/workfare.pdf

:D Personal friend.

HEHE!!!

Please tell me this is a joke? If not....can I get his autograph?

HEHE!!!

Please tell me this is a joke? If not....can I get his autograph?

It's not a joke. I'm not going to get into the business of getting random people autographs. Dave is busy. So busy, outside of a Christmas card I haven't seen/heard from/talked to him in about 2 years. I can't just call him randomly asking for stuff. haha.

What's with the Cockney slang in the poll?

Hah that ain't Cockney!

I think that welfare should be done away with completly.


But that's just me. I'm not a big fan of parasites.

Damn me but that's cold man. You do realise that most people truly are only two paychecks from being homeless?

As for parasites, I wonder what your digstive system would be like without them?

Judge the poor on how they treat themselves. Also many of the "poor" in the US, aren't very poor:



Poor? Hardly. Few people in the US are actually struggling to eat. The USA is a great country.

The link. (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm)

Thanks for speaking the truth early.

What would you do with the children that welfare is aimed at?

Ever heard of Private Charities?

Thanks for speaking the truth early.
You're very welcome!:D

Ever heard of Private Charities?


Yes, but they were around before the welfare state and we still got the welfare state...

I'm not sure why it is safe to assume they can do a better job now than a century ago.

The poor refuse help.

They'll take those welfare checks, sure, but they buy video games and drugs with that money. We offer them help finding jobs, we give them a chance to receive a better education by opening countless community colleges and offering GEDs.

They who refuse help are those who are to be judged.

SOME poor refuse help. those who cant be bothered to improve their lot should be left to their own devices instead of us moaning over how bad it is and how we have to find some way to "help" them.

as long as there is help to be had, the US is doing ok. its those times when people are left hopeless with no amount of effort being able to improve their lives that we need to rethink our approach.

Ever heard of Private Charities?

Ever read Dickens?

Umm, actually, I'm pretty sure that the quality of care is generally superior in the USA, than in countries with nationalized healthcare.

It is superior to Guatemala, but below Cuba. The US is nowhere near the other highly-developed nations in this respect.

Ever read Dickens?

Nope.

Poor? Hardly. Few people in the US are actually struggling to eat. The USA is a great country.



Therein hides an interesting alternative but generally unheard viewpoint: The BEST thing you can do for poor people is fix it so they aren't poor anymore. Of course, then you don't get to maintain a huge social welfare apparatus full of bureaucrats and patronage jobs, but we all have to make sacrifices for the common good. Paradoxically, the more people you lift out of poverty, the more you will be criticized by the good hearted but naive people of the world, because it means the remaining poor are comparitively worse off.

But by this standard the United States has done an excellent job of taking in poor people from around the world and making them not poor, for over two centuries now. My family, over six generations, has been very happy to have been a part of this.

What has the United States ever done for us?

A helluva lot more than any other place ever did. We were poor in those other places. Here, we did better. Most Americans came here voluntarily, because the other places sucked by comparison. (And the ones who didn't come here voluntarily, please note, are in no rush to leave!) European society? Been here, done that, put it behind us. Americans are people who have been screwed over by nations around the world, so excuse us, please, if we tend to respond to the "we're better than you" argument with a derisive snort. You kept us in poverty. Here, we got out of poverty.

Okay, a few of us got back in, but that was personal choices based on non-materialist philosophy, which I fully respect, not the society or government at fault.

Yeah, we have a society which offers huge material rewards to people who are aggressive, dynamic, competitive achievers, and the flip side is the bottom gets less, and it skews our Gini Index* big time. Talk to some guy driving a cab in NYC, chances, are, he's from Africa or South Asia, and he'll tell you, just like every wave of immigrants before, he came here BECAUSE we have a society which offers huge material rewards to people who are aggressive, dynamic, competitve achievers. So after centuries of that, what do you expect? We collected up all the aggressive, dynamic, competitive achievers and what we have today is what they built. No place for wussies.

*Oh, look it up. Sheesh. Do I have to explain everything?

Ever heard of Private Charities?

Yes. I doubt their effectiveness.

It is superior to Guatemala, but below Cuba. The US is nowhere near the other highly-developed nations in this respect.


Absurd. I've been in highly developed nations with nationalized health care and their health care systems consist of bureaucrats lying about numbers so their nation looks good on paper, while the average level of health is... about the same.

Sort of the way Japanese police keep the crime rate down and their success rate high by refusing to actually record a crime unless they believe they can solve it. "Stolen, no, you are mistaken. It is impossible, because this district has no thieves. I am certain you lost your wallet, your money, your watch, and yes, your piano, and that is what I am reporting."

Yes. I doubt their effectiveness.

Because the government hinders their effectiveness. How are we suppose to give to charities when:

National Bureau of Economic Research has concluded that the combined federal, state, and local government average marginal tax rate for most workers to be about 40% of income

Absurd. I've been in highly developed nations with nationalized health care and their health care systems consist of bureaucrats lying about numbers so their nation looks good on paper, while the average level of health is... about the same.

Sort of the way Japanese police keep the crime rate down and their success rate high by refusing to actually record a crime unless they believe they can solve it. "Stolen, no, you are mistaken. It is impossible, because this district has no thieves. I am certain you lost your wallet, your money, your watch, and yes, your piano, and that is what I am reporting."

A good way to tell is life expectancy. If the US lacks a national health care system but still has comparable life expectancies, then it's system must be pretty decent.

A good way to tell is life expectancy. If the US lacks a national health care system but still has comparable life expectancies, then it's system must be pretty decent.

And we'll be even better if we adjust to higher food prices by eating less!

Take away our "lifestyle choice" health problems, and Americans are in fine shape.

Because the government hinders their effectiveness. How are we suppose to give to charities when:

The government also subsidizes charities with tax deductions and property tax exemptions. Please show your evidence that charities would offset government support of poor kids.

Because the government hinders their effectiveness. How are we suppose to give to charities when:

Perhaps people should have pulled their fingers out when there was low taxes and no welfare state, and given more to charity in the first place...

Why should we believe charity would work better today than prior to the welfare state?

Perhaps people should have pulled their fingers out when there was low taxes and no welfare state, and given more to charity in the first place...

Why should we believe charity would work better today than prior to the welfare state?

Because charities don't threaten us with jail when we don't give them money.

FYI, the means used to produce that unemployment "rate" have varied over time, and it's a heavily modified (and relatively complicated) figure to derive.

Some people might remember a little period the US went through in the early 0Xs where the unemployment rate actually dropped not because people were finding jobs, but they'd been out of work for too long to count as "in the job market."
It also has no way of counting people that now work for themselves. That's a large and overlooked segment of the working population.

Like you said, it's complicated.

Because charities don't threaten us with jail when we don't give them money.
And this is different from a hundred years ago... how???

And this is different from a hundred years ago... how???

I wasn't aware that a hundred years ago charities threatened you with jail. I'd prefer a source.

I wasn't aware that a hundred years ago charities threatened you with jail. I'd prefer a source.
The question you were supposedly responding to was, why would private charities work any better now than they did back in the 19th century? You responded that they don't threaten you with jail-- apparently this was a distinction you were drawing between how charities work now versus how they used to work?
Or perhaps you are paying not the slightest bit of attention to what anyone is saying to you?

I'd rather judge a wet t-shirt contest

The question you were supposedly responding to was, why would private charities work any better now than they did back in the 19th century? You responded that they don't threaten you with jail-- apparently this was a distinction you were drawing between how charities work now versus how they used to work?
Or perhaps you are paying not the slightest bit of attention to what anyone is saying to you?

Correct me if I'm wrong CM, but he's referring to the fact that if you don't pay taxes to the government for today's charity (welfare), you would be thrown in prison, as opposed to back then when charity was private and non-compulsory.

The question you were supposedly responding to was, why would private charities work any better now than they did back in the 19th century? You responded that they don't threaten you with jail-- apparently this was a distinction you were drawing between how charities work now versus how they used to work?
Or perhaps you are paying not the slightest bit of attention to what anyone is saying to you?

Alright then:

1. It's not charity if it's forced.

2. Less money that is being TAKEN from us is used for the welfare.

3. Welfare gives people incentive to fail. Don't worry, the government will take care of you! It gives no skills, and there are plenty of stories of welfare fraud, or even people on welfare that have more then people who actually WORK.Here's my source. (http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html)

I'd rather judge a wet t-shirt contest

Yes, yes I would.

Yes that is nice, but not here nor there.

Why would charities work better now than they did a century ago?

Read my above post.

Tmutarakhan was referring to the effectiveness of charities originally. CM dodged the issue.
Same.

Because charities don't threaten us with jail when we don't give them money.

Yes that is nice, but not here nor there.

Why would charities work better now than they did a century ago?

Correct me if I'm wrong CM, but he's referring to the fact that if you don't pay taxes to the government for today's charity (welfare), you would be thrown in prison, as opposed to back then when charity was private and non-compulsory.

Tmutarakhan was referring to the effectiveness of charities originally. CM dodged the issue.

I find it deeply ironic that the people who bitch cry and moan about paying taxes are the very same people that suggest private charities would be sufficiently funded to provide adequate social welfare.

Correct me if I'm wrong CM, but he's referring to the fact that if you don't pay taxes to the government for today's charity (welfare), you would be thrown in prison, as opposed to back then when charity was private and non-compulsory.

At the risk of derailment...

It is quite funny because back then charities locked people up.

I find it deeply ironic that the people who bitch cry and moan about paying taxes are the very same people that suggest private charities would be sufficiently funded to provide adequate social welfare.

But private charities don't:

1. Force you.

2. Take 40% of your income.

I know I'M not donating 40% of my money to a charity. Yet the government forces that much out of you.

I find it deeply ironic that the people who bitch cry and moan about paying taxes are the very same people that suggest private charities would be sufficiently funded to provide adequate social welfare.

Though they are suprisingly cagey about admitting this.

At the risk of derailment...

It is quite funny because back then charities locked people up.

Source please.

What, have you never heard of the workhouse?
Yes, and in case you didn't notice it was by local GOVERNMENTS who FORCED people there. Here, let me outline Governments a few more times for you.

Source please.

What, have you never heard of the workhouse?

Incidentally, would you explain how private charity would be more effective than welfare now?

Alright then:

1. It's not charity if it's forced.

2. Less money that is being TAKEN from us is used for the welfare.

3. Welfare gives people incentive to fail. Don't worry, the government will take care of you! It gives no skills, and there are plenty of stories of welfare fraud, or even people on welfare that have more then people who actually WORK.Here's my source. (http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html)

Your study is from 1995, before welfare reform. Even then it looks like bullshit. AFDC and combined subsidies were never that generous. Also, no one I know of trumpets AFDC. It had huge work disincentives. A marginal tax rate of close to 100%. Even the the median lifetime use was only 3 years.

Your study is from 1995, before welfare reform. Even then it looks like bullshit. AFDC and combined subsidies were never that generous. Also, no one I know of trumpets AFDC. It had huge work disincentives. A marginal tax rate of close to 100%. Even the the median lifetime use was only 3 years.

Show me a source that proves me wrong then. I've given you mine, tis only fair you do the same.

But private charities don't:

1. Force you.

2. Take 40% of your income.

I know I'M not donating 40% of my money to a charity. Yet the government forces that much out of you.

I hate to say it, but state, local, and national taxes combined cost the average american 25% of their income. That's still pretty hefty.

I hate to say it, but state, local, and national taxes combined cost the average american 25% of their income. That's still pretty hefty.

:confused: I heard it was 40%. And that was in '05!

At the risk of derailment...

It is quite funny because back then charities locked people up.

:confused: Do you have a source? I've never heard of that before.

Really, US is a terrible country. In my opinion a country should be rated on how it treats its poor. And senior citizens are left in the dirt. Not to mention that gov. is 3 TRILLION IN ThE HOLE to China mostly.

Ummm no. I think that a government should be judged by how well it leaves poeple alone. Also, there are very few truly poor people. There are not a lot of people that die of starvation here. Poor people often have TVs and air conditioners. I think you are confused.

Show me a source that proves me wrong then. I've given you mine, tis only fair you do the same.

Here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/rn/Rn13.htm

Alright then:

1. It's not charity if it's forced.

2. Less money that is being TAKEN from us is used for the welfare.

3. Welfare gives people incentive to fail. Don't worry, the government will take care of you! It gives no skills, and there are plenty of stories of welfare fraud, or even people on welfare that have more then people who actually WORK.Here's my source. (http://www.cato.org/research/pr-nd-st.html)

Actually, in most cases, I don't find that to be true. Yes, there are people who would rather live on next to nothing, and complain. I don't have the numbers, but I suspect they're in the minority. Most welfare recipients, at least the intelligent ones, I suspect, have my attitude towards it. For me, when my husband left me and my children, it was a safety net. I used it until I got the skills I needed to get a job, then I got a job, got off welfare, and never looked back.

Yes, it can be abused. But it should not be eliminated in favor of private charity (most of which is faith-based and would play Hell on the sensibilities of a committed agnostic such as myself). Regardless of the flaws in the government system, and there are many, government run welfare is consistent, private charity isn't - it can't be, because the income source for private charity isn't consistent and there are no rules governing how private charity money is used. Private charities can exclude people based on race, life-style, gender, sexual preference - any number of things. They can decide that the money can only go for clothing or housing or food. They can interfere in the lives of charity recipients in ways that government run welfare can't.

Government run welfare should be run more efficiently, but it shouldn't be eliminated.

Here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/rn/Rn13.htm

Strangly enough, your source is from BEFORE mine. Yet you claim that my source is from BEFORE welfare reform. When asked to give a source proving that welfare reform solved that, you give me a source that predates mine. So please explain how your source proves anything.

Not in the States.

I live in the USA, and that book was made by someone living in the USA, and written in the USA. Any source?

:confused: I heard it was 40%. And that was in '05!

Not in the States.

Read my above post.


Same.
Your "above post" continues to show a complete lack of understanding of what you are being asked.

In the past, private charity has been found completely inadequate. That is why the welfare state started. You are recommending, apparently, a return to a reliance on private charity only. The question you are being asked is "Why would private charity function any better now than it did in the past?" You respond that governments function by coercion: yes, we know this, but that has zero relevance to the question. The question is, "Why would private charity function any better now than it did in the past?"

Strangly enough, your source is from BEFORE mine. Yet you claim that my source is from BEFORE welfare reform. When asked to give a source proving that welfare reform solved that, you give me a source that predates mine. So please explain how your source proves anything.

I gave you a source from the same year you gave mine. TANF, AFDC's replacement, is limited to 5 years over a lifetime and requires one to work 35 hours a week, with some state discretion. Also your study is flawed: http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-flawedcato.htm

Really, US is a terrible country. In my opinion a country should be rated on how it treats its poor. And senior citizens are left in the dirt. Not to mention that gov. is 3 TRILLION IN ThE HOLE to China mostly.

Do yourself a favor and think/research before you make posts... The United States has one of the smallest unemployment rates in the world, even smaller than Europe and its famed socialist tendencies. Not to mention few people in America are struggling to get a bite to eat due to nonprofit soup kitchens and welfare. That's not to say that there aren't people suffering in the United States, but the simple truth is, a vast majority are doing just fine.

Senior citizens left in the dirt? That's a laugh. It is political suicide in the U.S. to alienate the elderly because statistics show that the elderly make up the the bulk of American voters. Due to the fact that they're retired, they can stand in line all day waiting for a ballot. Voting against social security or health care would be a 100% sure way to get your butt thrown out of office.

I realize you're probably sixteen and think you have the answers to all the world's problems, but don't be a naysayer unless you have all your facts straight and you could do a better job. America isn't perfect, but neither is the rest of the world... If you want to live in a communist nation, by all means... Go to one. Then you might realize how good you've got it here in America.

Yes, and in case you didn't notice it was by local GOVERNMENTS who FORCED people there. Here, let me outline Governments a few more times for you.

Quite right. Now, I'll admit admit I was wrong with my throwaway comment. Now will you explain why private charity will work as well as welfare?

I realize you're probably sixteen and think you have the answers to all the world's problems, but don't be a naysayer unless you have all your facts straight and you could do a better job. America isn't perfect, but neither is the rest of the world... If you want to live in a communist nation, by all means... Go to one. Then you might realize how good you've got it here in America.
Be a man and tell us how old you are, REALLY. C'mon.