Reply to $22 Trillion spent on the war on poverty in the last 50 years...

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "$22 Trillion spent on the war on poverty in the last 50 years..."

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]A better start would be to end corporate welfare in which companies get away with paying such low wages that a person working a full time job or two part time jobs ends up at the poverty line and thus subsidized by the taxpayer.

[b]By all means. Let's cut off the food stamps. Safeway, Kroger, Wegmans, Albertsons and all those other large corporations do not need corporate welfare.[/b]

They should pay a living wage.  And, they can afford to do so.

[b]They do. If they didn't, their workers would be dying and no one would be working.[/b]

[i]No they don't.  If that were true we wouldn't need food stamps!  A huge percentage of people collecting food stamps and other government benefits are in fact working full time.[/i]

How about we deal with the out-of-control housing market, in which rent consumes an inordinate amount of many peoples' income, and home ownership is out of reach?

[b]How about moving out of the cities. You want NYC, you are going to pay NYC prices. It's really up to you where you live.[/b]

[i]Fine, then move those jobs out of NYC.  Companies need to embrace telework and other kinds of better models.[/i]

How about we deal with wealth inequality, for example there being no legitimate reason why a corporate CEO today should be making tens of millions of dollars a year when his predecessor a few decades ago wasn't even making 1 million a year.  That CEO today isn't actually any more effective, special or worth the extra money than his predecessor was.

[b]The more YOU do, the more wealth inequality there is. Stop doing. We've experienced your agenda in full force. YOU are the problem. You've been dealing with wealth inequality for 50 years. Newsflash: it ain't working![/b]

[i]No.  For the last several decades it's been YOUR agenda:  Trickle-down, corporatist oligarchy.  THAT ain't working.[/i]

How about we actually reward the producers and those who create jobs, like small business, and disincentivize and much more aggressively tax people who just suck money out of the economy, house flippers and middlemen and hedge fund traders and arbitrageurs who make their money through manipulating real estate, commodities, stocks, currency et cetera and who don't actually produce anything or contribute in any meaningful way to society.  And even more so with predatory businesses.

[b]My god, the victimhood is strong here. Meaningful? That's a definition in your head. House flippers? Should we all sit around and watch soap operas all day and expect money from heaven to pour down on us? How about some individual incentive to better yourself?[/b]

[i]Again, we SHOULD NOT incentivize people who don't produce or create anything, or those who harm the economy by impoverishing others.  Has nothing to do with "victimhood", has everything to do with creating a more stable and robust economy.  The more that money circulates, the more powerful and robust an economy becomes.  That means, people with disposable income.  Consumerism drives demand and demand drives supply.  Can't get any more capitalist than that![/i]

[/quote]

[/quote][/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics