Rep Grayson Introduces "War is Making You Poor Act"

Gee, ya think? Your definition is, basically, ridiculous.

 

I like that you assume that everyone who is "poor" has "a 52" flat screen TV, high speed internet, full premium TV, smart phones, and all the other gadgetry." Did you get your information from an empirical study of those who make a wage that leaves them below the poverty level or are you just being a Fauxbot?

 

I admit, I have 2 cars, both bought new, a 52" big screen, high speed internet, & other gadgetry. Most of which I got when I could easily afford them(I can't so much anymore). Its amazing how many things have become a necessity, though one could argue that cell phones and high-speed internet have become a necessity for most people.

 

I would have to see more about the bill to fully agree with it but I like it in principle.

The DoD budget is ridiculously bloated and wasteful and we need to get a handle on it. For instance I was seeing something the other day were Congress is pressing the military to maintain a second engine design for the Joint Strike Fighter (a plane of questionable need already) even though the military doesn't want or need another engine.

We hear a lot of criticism about pork barrel spending but rarely is any of it directing at the hog trough known as the DoD.

 

I wonder why this is, though? Is it fear of being called anti-military? Is it simply a fear of the military itself in Congress?

 

Can I be in favor of parsing the DoD budget without an accompanying tax cut?

 

You know, I'd just like to add that I know a bit about what I'm talking about when it comes to people making $35k. 1 in 3 students I teach comes from a family with total gross family income less than $35k. These kids aren't driving cars. Some don't have cell phones (I know, can you believe it.) They can't afford their class textbooks. They skip meals. When one kid's glasses broke this year, he had to tape them together (yes, right in the middle... luckily he was a science major.) The family won't be buying him new glasses anytime soon, but once his summer job kicks in, he'll get some new ones.

Most of these students are absolutely awesome and hardworking, by the way. And they're every color of the rainbow (okay, not purple or green or light blue.)

And before another red herring comes up, just because someone is fat because they can only afford McDonald's doesn't make them less in poverty.

 

I know what you are talking about. The school I teach in is 99% title I. It used to be 100%. The families often have parents working more than one job, kids who think any house with more than 1 bedroom is a mansion, often can't afford jackets and coats to wear when it's cold, can't afford eye glasses that they desperately need in order to learn, have never been to restaurant with a menu that's handed to them by a waiter, believe that going to a crummy, rundown neighborhood park for a bar-b-que is a super treat and luxury because they barely can get out of their house, and a million other hardships that would shock most of us.

This has generated one of the stupidest posts ever. I knew I disagreed with space ghost, and realized he might have that much real world experience, but I never thought he would seriously post something like he did.

 

This is a very popular myth with the free marketeers.

 

Its not a myth, but it is not always true. There is also a huge difference between someone that lives on $15,000/year and $35,000. I use myself as an example. My wife and kids are on WIC, my kids are on medicaid. My wife drives a new car, we have cable, we have the top internet speed offered in our area, and we have lots of fairly nice stuff(though most of which I bought as a single guy). I'm basically the $35,000 guy.

 

No beggars when unemployment was at 10% during the Carter administration?

 

I am.

 

Not in my neighborhood. After Reagan installed his fiscal policy, they were everywhere, including my neighborhood.

 

Actually that 10 % didn't happen until Reagan became the president.

 

I'm just finding it hard to believe that as more people went back to work, more homeless people started begging for money.

 

People with jobs aren't begging on the street. Reagan greatly expanded the Earned Income Credit, which added money to the pockets of the working class. EIC is nothing but a redistribution of wealth from those who pay income taxes to those who don't.

 

The contention is that the poor were more adversely affected by the scaling back of services and the tightening up of access to unemployment and other benefits during the Regan era (which was really a global thing with Thatcher in the UK etc) then they benefited from tax cuts (or EIC). The evidence is that there simply did seem to be a lot more people panhandling post Regan then before....That was my experience too.

Which is why it's a bit odd, glynch is so giddy about this proposal which is an extension of the tax cuts mantra -- to those who don't really pay a lot of tax...Granted, every bit helps, but advocating an expansion of services seems more in line with his previous posts. -- That's given you take the position that every reduction in expenditure must be offset by and equal reduction in revenue (or increase in other expenditure) and record deficits are really not part of the discussion.

 

Not affiliated with any particular party but I would say I'm a fiscal conservative & a social moderate. This absolutely is a great idea. We've been at war-a pointless war-now for 7 years with absolutely nothing accomplished. There is no boggey man, there are no terrorists and it's all a figment of people's immagination. I wish the people, regardless of political affiliation, could all agree and demand our representatives to end the war and to put more fiscal attention within our borders. Pay for healthcare & social security with all the money we're dumping into Iraq, Afghnistan, South Korea, Germany, Japan and every other country our empire stretches.