Capitalism Has Failed—What Next?

which of the two of us is rich and doesn't give a fuck about the Earned Income Credit for poor people?

i'm guessing i'm the prosperous one.

poor people are poor because they are losers. Capitalism is their only hope to not be poor. but there is a catch. Capitalism always rewards those who work hard. Socialism always enslaves the poor. Never in history has Socialism ever lifted the masses out of poverty, rather it steals the money of those who earned it and squanders it on losers. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

I don't know if I would call a poor person a loser. There maybe some circumstances beyond their control that causes them to fall into poverty. I think a real loser is someone who would pay 2000 a month for a one bedroom chicken shit apartment, lol.

I don't know if I would call a poor person a loser. There maybe some circumstances beyond their control that causes them to fall into poverty. I think a real loser is someone who would pay 2000 a month for a one bedroom chicken shit apartment, lol. Originally Posted by Levianon17

i'll allow that on a technicality.


BAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAA

That level that you mentioned is based on a mathematical formula. They don't come up with the "federal poverty level" numbers randomly or throw darts at some chart of numbers. Originally Posted by adav8s28

Sounds like you're an expert on this. Please tell us exactly what formula is used to set the federal poverty level each year. I'm all ears.

You ever see pictures of Mississippi, some parts of Mississippi is (sic) like a third world country. Originally Posted by adav8s28

What's your point? That wages in Mississippi lag way behind the rest of the country? No argument there. If you want to help the poorest in that state, you should be arguing for a LOWER federal poverty level. The more people you disqualify from federal assistance programs in states like NY and Cali, the more dollars you'll free up and can redirect to help the truly needy in Mississippi.

...the minimum wage of $7.50 or whatever it is, is too small. That is why you have people living in the streets or in shelters. Originally Posted by adav8s28

The federal MW is $7.25 an hour, not $7.50. Have you ever talked to those people living in the streets or in shelters? How many of them suffer from mental illnesses? How many are addicted to drugs/alcohol? If you genuinely want to help them, you should volunteer your time to steer them into treatment instead of mandating what employers have to pay unskilled workers.

That level that you mentioned is based on a mathematical formula. They don't come up with the "federal poverty level" numbers randomly or throw darts at some chart of numbers. Let's just stick to the USA and it's income data. You ever see pictures of Mississippi, some parts of Mississippi is like a third world country. The point a few posts ago was the minimum wage of $7.50 or whatever it is, is too small. That is why you have people living in the streets or in shelters. The price of everything has gone up since 2009 except the minimum wage. Perhaps if a person can't find a job that pays $15 per hour they should move to Seattle, where $15 is the minimum wage. The Federal poverty numbers of 2019 has NOTHING to do with Obama. They get calculated every year.

https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/...rty-level.html Originally Posted by adav8s28

You're lying again. Odumbo redefined poverty during his administration raising the threshold beneath which people were defined as in poverty. It's a number set by politicians.

And there are fewer homeless in the whole state of Mississippi than are in Los Angeles county.

Words like "rich" and "poor" are relative. 72.5% of Mississippians own their own homes. Only 51% of new Yorkers can say the same.

^^^ that's the Hypocrisy of the liberals they Redefine everything for the benefit at the time.

I don't know if I would call a poor person a loser. There maybe some circumstances beyond their control that causes them to fall into poverty. I think a real loser is someone who would pay 2000 a month for a one bedroom chicken shit apartment, lol. Originally Posted by Levianon17

Newbie, you wouldn't pay $2000 a month for a one bedroom apartment because you can't. Stop fooling yourself. There is nothing chicken shit about Turtle Creek in Dallas.

You're lying again. Odumbo redefined poverty during his administration raising the threshold beneath which people were defined as in poverty. It's a number set by politicians.

And there are fewer homeless in the whole state of Mississippi than are in Los Angeles county.

Words like "rich" and "poor" are relative. 72.5% of Mississippians own their own homes. Only 51% of new Yorkers can say the same. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're counting trailers in trailers parks as homes, right?

Sounds like you're an expert on this. Please tell us exactly what formula is used to set the federal poverty level each year. I'm all ears. Originally Posted by lustylad

The census bureau has a process to determine/measure the poverty line. It does not seem like elected officials are picking numbers out of a hat. Isn't that what IBH was talking about?

https://confrontingpoverty.org/pover...we-measure-it/

Newbie, you wouldn't pay $2000 a month for a one bedroom apartment because you can't. Stop fooling yourself. There is nothing chicken shit about Turtle Creek in Dallas. Originally Posted by adav8s28

Iam happy with the house I live in which, is paid for. It's really not how much you make that counts, it's how much you save. Think about that the next time you fork over 2000 bucks next month to your greedy landlord.

You're counting trailers in trailers parks as homes, right? Originally Posted by adav8s28

only in your neighborhood. all 1 on them.


BAHAAAAAAAA

You're counting trailers in trailers parks as homes, right? Originally Posted by adav8s28

Can't handle the real facts that are available for all sentient human beings to read and understand, can ya?

St Louis Fed

^^^ that's the Hypocrisy of the liberals they Redefine everything for the benefit at the time. Originally Posted by rexdutchman

A CNBC analysis of data from the Treasury Department ranks the combined $72 billion in revenue from all the president's tariffs as one of the biggest tax increases since 1993.

Rebranding


Trump's tariffs are equivalent to one of the largest tax increases in decades


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/16/trum...n-decades.html

Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Trump's Tariffs are not a Tax increase on consumers. What the Tariffs are intended to be is a safety net for American products. For so long China exported their goods to America at such cheap prices that American goods suffered. The Tariff is a strategy to even out the playing field. It's not a poor strategy and would strengthen our economy but America needs to manufacture more products at competitive prices to make the Tariffs worthwhile.

We should produce more here, in this country. But the labor is so cheap and living standards so low, even maga hats are made in China.

We should produce more here, in this country. But the labor is so cheap and living standards so low, even maga hats are made in China. Originally Posted by eccieuser9500

Feinstein agrees with you.