Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[Scot Dutchy]

42's great claim that there are no poor in America (from the report):

Some politicians and political appointees with whom I spoke were completely sold on the narrative of such scammers sitting on comfortable sofas, watching color TVs, while surfing on their smart phones, all paid for by welfare. I wonder how many of these politicians have ever visited poor areas, let alone spoken to those who dwell there. There are anecdotes aplenty, but evidence is nowhere to be seen.

How many in poverty (from the report):

In order to define and quantify poverty in America, the Census Bureau uses ‘poverty thresholds’ or Official Poverty Measures (OPM), updated each year. In September 2017, more than one in every eight Americans were living in poverty (40 million, equal to 12.7% of the population). And almost half of those (18.5 million) were living in deep poverty, with reported family income below one-half of the poverty threshold.

There is no poverty.

[pErvinalia]

42's great claim that there are no poor in America (from the report):

Some politicians and political appointees with whom I spoke were completely sold on the narrative of such scammers sitting on comfortable sofas, watching color TVs, while surfing on their smart phones, all paid for by welfare. I wonder how many of these politicians have ever visited poor areas, let alone spoken to those who dwell there. There are anecdotes aplenty, but evidence is nowhere to be seen.

What I'm finding hard to square is the fact that Richard Alston was a member of the most conservative government (behind Tony Abbott's aborted government) Australia has had in a long time - that of John Howard's Liberal/Nationals coalition. My recollection of him was that he was a strident conservative warrior, who did his best to totally fuck the public broadcaster ABC. In fact, the rot probably started with him, and has been continued in every conservative government since. Strange that he's now all of a sudden a champion for the disadvantaged in society, given his conservative background.

[Scot Dutchy]

I dont know him from adam but people can change which is obvious in this case. Maybe he had a road to Damascus moment?

[JimC]

Brainwashed by the liberal intelligentsia!

[PsychoSerenity]

42's great claim that there are no poor in America (from the report):

Some politicians and political appointees with whom I spoke were completely sold on the narrative of such scammers sitting on comfortable sofas, watching color TVs, while surfing on their smart phones, all paid for by welfare. I wonder how many of these politicians have ever visited poor areas, let alone spoken to those who dwell there. There are anecdotes aplenty, but evidence is nowhere to be seen.

What I'm finding hard to square is the fact that Richard Alston was a member of the most conservative government (behind Tony Abbott's aborted government) Australia has had in a long time - that of John Howard's Liberal/Nationals coalition. My recollection of him was that he was a strident conservative warrior, who did his best to totally fuck the public broadcaster ABC. In fact, the rot probably started with him, and has been continued in every conservative government since. Strange that he's now all of a sudden a champion for the disadvantaged in society, given his conservative background.

It's his brother apparently. Chalk and cheese. Bet the family Christmases were fun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Alston
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A ... olitician)

[Animavore]

Damn! Like the Hitchens bros.

[pErvinalia]

D'oh! A bit like another member of the same government - Peter Costello and his brother Tim. It's interesting how successful brothers can turn out to be so politically different. Also perhaps a bit like our former bigot PM Tony Abbott, who's sister, a local politician in Sydney, is a lesbian.

[Forty Two]

42's great claim that there are no poor in America (from the report):

Some politicians and political appointees with whom I spoke were completely sold on the narrative of such scammers sitting on comfortable sofas, watching color TVs, while surfing on their smart phones, all paid for by welfare. I wonder how many of these politicians have ever visited poor areas, let alone spoken to those who dwell there. There are anecdotes aplenty, but evidence is nowhere to be seen.

This reverses what evidence and anecdote mean. The "evidence" is the statistical data reported by the government agencies I cited and quoted. The "anecdote" is what's referenced here in the quote about a politician visiting a poor area.

How many in poverty (from the report):

In order to define and quantify poverty in America, the Census Bureau uses ‘poverty thresholds’ or Official Poverty Measures (OPM), updated each year. In September 2017, more than one in every eight Americans were living in poverty (40 million, equal to 12.7% of the population). And almost half of those (18.5 million) were living in deep poverty, with reported family income below one-half of the poverty threshold.

There is no poverty.

Once again, when poverty is defined as "the bottom 12.7%" or "people making less than $X per year" then, of course, there is poverty. But, the question of how do the bottom 12.7% live is a different one. I've tried to explain this several times, and you're either not getting it, or intentionally avoiding it. Just like how in the Netherlands the bottom 12.7% of the population, or the people making less than 33,000 Euros per year, or whatever, live pretty fucking good, and hardly would be considered "poor" by the standards of the "rest of the world," the same is true in the US. By world standards, there are no significant numbers of poor in the Netherlands, and the same is true of the US. But, if you measure it by comparing the incomes or wealth of the rich and poor in the Netherlands without reference to living standards, there are plenty of people living in "poverty" there too.

There must, be, right? Because you give so many people that guaranteed $1200 or whatever per month. If they weren't "poor" they wouldn't need that subsidy, isn't that true? And, a lot of those folks are working paying jobs, aren't they? So, wouldn't the Netherlands then be subject to the same criticism as the US in not requiring private employers to pay a "living wage" so the government wouldn't have to shell out all that welfare money?

[Hermit]

Once again, when poverty is defined as "the bottom 12.7%" or "people making less than $X per year" then, of course, there is poverty. But, the question of how do the bottom 12.7% live is a different one. I've tried to explain this several times, and you're either not getting it, or intentionally avoiding it. Just like how in the Netherlands the bottom 12.7% of the population, or the people making less than 33,000 Euros per year, or whatever, live pretty fucking good, and hardly would be considered "poor" by the standards of the "rest of the world," the same is true in the US. By world standards, there are no significant numbers of poor in the Netherlands, and the same is true of the US.

So you said, but then you ran away from the debate here and here. You wrote that you'd eventually get back to the issues here, but you never did.

[Brian Peacock]

The problem with poverty in the US seems to be that the poor are too rich.

[pErvinalia]

The latest tax reform package will fix that.

[pErvinalia]

.

[Scot Dutchy]

For many America is the worst shithole in the world but for a happy few it is the garden of Eden.

[Tyrannical]

A rope works too. Cheap and reusable.

[Forty Two]

For many America is the worst shithole in the world but for a happy few it is the garden of Eden.

This is absurd.