On poverty

Then we agree. A president can be pressured.....

The argument was 'forced'. Pressured? Si, forced? No.

 

Huh? How would that constitute not working? People have a right to waste their own money. They don't have a right to waste public money.

 

That doesn't support the claim that lack of funds is why people consume an unhealthy diet. It only strengthens my position. Keep in mind, this is only one example. Sugar drinks is not the only factor.

 

So you feel an entitlement to your cushy first world life, I take it? And you expect the tax payer to fund it?

 

Let's focus on the fact that it's a CHOICE to purchase that stuff. No one is forced to buy it.

 

Every residential dwelling must have kitchen facilities. Shared or not, there has to be a kitchen.

Pointless to include the homeless, who are a miniscule proportion of the poor and working classes. If you have to resort to extremes (and extreme unlikelihoods), your argument isn't strong.

 

Try telling that to your average Asian parents - most of whom are relentless machines, and will sacrifice every last minute of their own time and comfort in the interests of their kids' future welfare.

"Exhausted" is not an argument. If some can do all that stuff and still cook from scratch, anyone can.

 

I didn't make that claim. I said that poor people migrate to the cheapest goods whether or not they get EBT

 

Milton Friedman, the libertarian economist, was for a negative income tax. The reason he said he supported it was that the recipients were 'free to choose' ( he wrote a book with that title ). See, he was okay with this kind of welfare as long as the markets were free.

What would be your solution?

 

They pay good money for those they pay to do so and Morris was quite correct. Clintons response to the recession and recovery was a flop and he lost the Congress because of it and was about to lose reelection/ Gingrich and Kasich said here is the new policy and you well sign on and his highly paid political adviser said DO IT. It was REPUBLICAN policies not his.

He was NOT an equal partner, it was not his policy and vowed to rescind it if given a Dem Congress.

You have asserted the vast number of people on welfare are no able bodied and that getting the able bodied would not affect what we spend on providing the subsidence. You have provided nothing to back up that assertion while I have to refute it.

Sorry thought I pasted the link but here

"Among the 46.0 million adults who received income-based government assistance in 2011, 30.4 percent of them had a disability, according to a report released today from the U.S. Census Bureau."
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2013/cb13-33.html

That means almost 70% are not disabled.

Now do YOUR homework and prove your assertions.

 

And his proposal was nothing like todays wealth transfers and later changed his mind as he saw that in the end government would use it and the levels like any other welfare program to bribe voters and encourage people not to work which many are very willing to freely choose.

 

No, your claim is just false. Single-room flophouses are often aging, decrepit hotels that never had a kitchen except the one that provided room service. That kitchen is not shared; it is off limits to residents.

Pointless to include them because they prove you wrong?

If you can't account for the extremes, your argument just flat-out fails.

 

So what? No one is "forced" to give money to a con man, either. That doesn't mean it isn't fraud. There is a multi-trillion dollar industry -- marketing -- built on the fact that people can legally be made to act against their own interests without resort to physical force. You just have to find some way of not knowing that fact, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

 

I feel entitled to my rights, knowing that if I had them (which I don't), I'd be able to earn myself and my family a cushy first world life.

"...to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men..."

 

In more democratic countries, that kind of legislative dishonesty is prohibited. Bills presented to the legislature cannot contain measures unrelated to the main subject of the bill, and when a number of small, unrelated measures that aren't important enough to justify separate bills are needed, they are aggregated into an omnibus bill perhaps once or twice a year.

 

There must be FOOD PRODUCING facilities! A hotel doesn't let you into their kitchen either, but you can still get a meal cooked.

Pointless because we're talking about the vast majority, not the tiny minority.

In what universe are resources so infinite that every iteration of idiosyncrasy can be catered to? Star Trek? The Buffysphere?

 

So that's a yes, then.

 

You CANNOT protect people from themselves. You patch one hole in the bucket and another will open. People determined to sabotage themselves will always, always find a way.

You're coming at this from entirely the wrong angle. You're perpetuating the problem, in so doing.

 

However, you can protect them from greedy, evil, privileged parasites -- but only if you want to. You don't. Simple.

Is that your approach to the harm caused by illegal stealing as well as legalized stealing?

You assume that people who are being legally robbed are determined to sabotage themselves. Do you think those who are robbed illegally are also determined to sabotage themselves?

You're coming at this from entirely the wrong angle. You're perpetuating the problem, in so doing.

 

No it's not, don't be ridiculous. Being entitled to the liberty to earn a cushy life is not the same as being entitled to a cushy life, just as being entitled to the liberty to find a wife is not the same as being entitled to a wife.

GET IT????

 

Right; but if you are going to pay for a hotel chef to cook your food, you might as well buy packaged convenience food.

I'm talking about the poor.

What on earth do you incorrectly imagine you think you might be talking about?

 

That's genetics, as cross-racial adoption studies have shown.

Wrong. Exhausted is most definitely an argument. Neurological research (of which you are absolutely innocent) has shown that poverty imposes a burden of constant stress over even the smallest financial decisions that leads to mental exhaustion and poor decision making. That is a big reason the poor are so attracted to sugary junk foods: relentless financial stress exhausts the brain's glucose reserves, causing sugar cravings.

 

Having observed a lot of poor people in supermarkets, I disagree. Based on what I saw in their shopping carts, they seem more inclined to migrate to the most heavily advertised goods, like brand-name soda, sweetened breakfast cereal, chips, candy bars, etc. -- which not coincidentally also have the highest profit margins.

 

Wrong, I stand by my assertion. The buck stops at the resolute desk.

I've asserted nothing. Stating the default is not a claim, its the default. You are the one stating the claim, the onus is on YOU.

No, for your last link to mean anything, more data is needed.

Do the stats reflect policy requirements?

If they do, the whatever the stats are, they are per policy.

Now, if you have a complaint about the policy, fine.

But, you really haven't proven anything beyond that.

 

The way you write is torture to read. Moreover, your claim is too general and not really an argument. You'll have to be more specific, give examples, and link to them to have a valid argument.