To all you Americans who don't own a home

[Ishmael]

They're currently chanting the post-Iraqi REDWAVIAN mantra of, "We are in a quagmire, ohhhhhhhhm..."

"We are in a quagmire, ohhhhhhhhm..."
"We are in a quagmire, ohhhhhhhhm..."
"We are in a quagmire, ohhhhhhhhm..."
"We are in a quagmire, ohhhhhhhhm..."
"We are in a quagmire, ohhhhhhhhm..."
...

There's a business opportunity out there for someone who would cater to the Democratic party.

"Mantras To Go" --- 'Pseudo religious incantations to ward off evil and solicit funds. While you wait'

Ishmael

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

LOL - LT? Are you paying attention?

 

[sigh]

Because it is, of course, true that before the government became the "safety net" we had Mexico-like poverty.

In 2000, the population of Mexico living below the poverty line was estimated at 40%. As a baseline, the poverty rate was 12.1 percent.. Note that those povert figures are based on different baselines, based on clost of living int he respective countries. Mexico's individual poverty level is somewhere around $1 per day while the US is around $9,000 per year.

I'll narrow down the number, though, to just a few years before the New Deal began in 1964 mostly because I don't feel like making a special request to get all the poverty numbers.

Here are the percentages of people below the poverty level on the years approaching 1964.

1959: 22.4
1960: 22.2
1961: 21.9
1962: 21.0
1963: 19.5
1964: 19.0
1965: 17.3
1966: 14.7
2001: 11.7

This, of course, comes from the US Census Bureau.

So what you see is before the advent of government "safety nets", our poverty level wasn't even 23 percent. Even after the safety nets began we've only managed to half our poverty rate. Based on their stated goal (to end poverty) and the amount of money put into them (the last I heard was somewhere over 40 trillion dollars) they've not been terribly successful.

But that's beside the point. The point is that again, LT, you're wrong. Even before the "safety net" we've not approached poverty levels like Mexico has today.

Jim, I've no doubt that what you're saying is true, but the New Deal wasn't the start of social programs in this country. Social Security was signed into law in 1935. US Census information on poverty (at least on the official site you linked) only goes back to 1959, which is 24 years later. I find it a stretch to say that you can prove anything with a discrepancy like that.

And since when is cutting our poverty level in half something we refer to as "only"? I'm not at all sure that reduction was due to social programs, but whatever caused can't be viewed as anything but a success. Political speechmaking promising an end to poverty aside, what's so bad about half?


And what does this have to do with buying a house anyway? LT, for the sake of time, let's leapfrog ahead and make a huge assumption and agree that what you're saying about the difficulty in buying a house is true, and further, it's not only true but it's a rich man's plot to keep the little folk down. I know some people will say they bought a house with a shovelful of manure for a downpayment and others will say they've been saving for decades and the rich landowners are blocking their attempts to join their ranks. Fine. Whatever. That sort of talk can go on for days (already has). But let's forget all that. For the sake of argument I'll grant you the evil "landed gentry" point (even though I guess I fit in those ranks).

My question is, what do you propose we do about this? I asked you that a lot of pages ago and I'm still waiting to hear. Are you suggesting a federal program to buy houses for the poor? Or do you think we should expand our social programs to the point where we give enough money to every individual or family in the country to not only raise them above the poverty line, but allow them to buy a house as well? Where does it end? Will every bride-to-be be entitled to a government sponsored diamond on her engagement day? After all, that's part of the American Dream too. LT, you and I (hell, I think everyone here) agree that some government programs are necessary, but miles' question still begs to be answered. To what extent?

 

[Algore]

Step one: Vote for me, I mean, Howard Dean.

 

[sigh]

There's a business opportunity out there for someone who would cater to the Democratic party.

"Mantras To Go" --- 'Pseudo religious incantations to ward off evil and solicit funds. While you wait'

Ishmael

I'm torn between righteous indignation and laughing my ass off. Ah hell, it's a gloomy day. I could use a laugh.

LOL

 

[Ishmael]

Just a few points sigh.

First of all the poverty level is subjective. Always has been.

The census and IRS data that goes into making up the poverty level figures has always been subject to question. From communal households to kids still living at home but whose earnings are under the poverty level. It is suspected, but not proven, that the actual poverty level census is far less than that which is reported.

The last point is that the trend was downwards without welfare, etc. Look at the poverty figures and draw a graph from '59 to '01. You might be surprised by what you see.

Ishmael

 

[Algore]

What's wrong with mantras? Many of my constituents chant mantras and burn incense. I chant mantras.

OHWHYOHWHYBILLCOULDN'TYOUKEEPYOURHANDSTOYOURSELFOHM
OHWHYOHWHYBILLCOULDN'TYOUKEEPYOURHANDSTOYOURSELFOHM
OHWHYOHWHYBILLCOULDN'TYOUKEEPYOURHANDSTOYOURSELFOHM
OHWHYOHWHYBILLCOULDN'TYOUKEEPYOURHANDSTOYOURSELFOHM
OHWHYOHWHYBILLCOULDN'TYOUKEEPYOURHANDSTOYOURSELFOHM

I try to do it in my pyramid amid the crystals...

 

[bluespoke]

What's wrong with mantras? Many of my constituents chant mantras and burn incense. I chant mantras.

OHWHYOHWHYBILLCOULDN'TYOUKEEPYOURHANDSTOYOURSELFOHM
OHWHYOHWHYBILLCOULDN'TYOUKEEPYOURHANDSTOYOURSELFOHM
OHWHYOHWHYBILLCOULDN'TYOUKEEPYOURHANDSTOYOURSELFOHM
OHWHYOHWHYBILLCOULDN'TYOUKEEPYOURHANDSTOYOURSELFOHM
OHWHYOHWHYBILLCOULDN'TYOUKEEPYOURHANDSTOYOURSELFOHM

I try to do it in my pyramid amid the crystals...

Morning AJ!

 

[JazzManJim]

Jim, I've no doubt that what you're saying is true, but the New Deal wasn't the start of social programs in this country. Social Security was signed into law in 1935. US Census information on poverty (at least on the official site you linked) only goes back to 1959, which is 24 years later. I find it a stretch to say that you can prove anything with a discrepancy like that.

And since when is cutting our poverty level in half something we refer to as "only"? I'm not at all sure that reduction was due to social programs, but whatever caused can't be viewed as anything but a success. Political speechmaking promising an end to poverty aside, what's so bad about half?

Yuo're right, but it was the start of what we consider "safety net" programs and the real advent of the governmental welfare system on a large scale (of the kind that LT has vociferously advocates).

What I can, and did, prove, is that LT was wrong in saying that we would go right to Mexico-type poverty levels if those programs didn't exist. We do have data from when they didn't, and we didn't then. There's absolutely no reason to expect that we would now.

I regard is as "only" because the intent of the New Deal was to end poverty. With that as its goal, it's obviously failed. Now we could argue (and maybe we will) whether or not a partial success is still a success, but by the initial measure, it wasn't. I agree that we can't attribute all the reduction in poverty to the New Deal, but that only serves to reinforce my second point - that for the money we've put into the programs, we've gotten miserable results.

Of course, none of that has anything to do with buying a house. It was just to refute yet another stilly LT point. It's not for his benefit but for others who might read what he has to say and actually believe him.

 

[JazzManJim]

JMJ - true. America's poverty line hasn't been as low as Mexico's.

Mexico could certainly improve their conditions with a rehabilitative social welfare system.

Do take note that even with our social welfare/safety net system in place, poverty has declined right down to a point of diminishing returns where it probably cannot decline any further.

Which destroys the credibility of the Libertarian claim that the war on poverty is a failure.....

Mexico has had a rehabilitative social welfare system in place for some time now. Thanks in part to such a system, their unemployment in 2002 was a very impressive 3 percent.

And yet they have a 40% poverty level.

I would be interested to hear how you'd explain that.

And further, what proof can you possibly provide that poverty probably can't decline any further? I want to see some of that too.

But let's assume for a moment that there's a world where that's true. That argues against your desired increase in social welfare programs. After all, if we can't reduce the poverty level measurably anymore, there's no reason to increase the programs design to lower poverty.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

No kidding. They remind me of the preists of old.

"The end is coming. Repent. (Oh, and give me your money and we'll see what we can do about saving you.)"

It's all about fear mongering.

Ishmael

Libertarianism accusing their opposition of fear mongering is like you accusing me of name calling.

Oh, the irony.


And sigh - the "extent" to which I believe programs should exist, is
a) support those who cannot earn their own income. Social Security Disability & SSI address that. It's very hard to discuss that issue, though, when you have Ishmael waving around his utter ignorance about SSD's draconian standards for eligibility. There are no private companies that will provide coverage and benefits for those who cannot earn money and pay into it beforehand - not even Mutual of Omaha or Unum.
b) assist and rehabilitate those who are in need of public assistance, and who potentially can work. Get them off of public assistance without throwing them to the wolves.

Under no circumstance have I ever said I wanted federal programs to buy houses for the poor. This thread was made using Miles's and Ishmael's own words and very little more than that, as a way of demonstrating the laughable absurdity of their claim that home ownership is easy. The point of this thread is it is not as easy as Ishmael and Miles claim it is. I've said this repeatedly. The point of this thread is not that anyone wants the government to buy people houses.

I've said the above more than once as an answer to your question.

 

[smoke34]

Ok, lets assume you cannot afford to save for the downpayment on a home after you cut out the wasteful and unnecessary spending, you have indeed made some bad choices and are paying the price for them. Btw, there are programs out there where there is NO required downpayment for first time buyer. But if you didn't get a decent education (you dropped out of schooll, wasn't willing to work and go to college, etc) or you have failed to meet your obligations and now have a sorry credit record, it is indeed your choices that prevent you from buying a home. Maybe you only went to high school, took a low paying job, got married and had three children...no way you can afford to buy a home....and who is to blame for those decisions that now make it difficult for you to save money?

Apparently you did not want to buy a home more than you wanted other things. So are we all supposed to kick in even more tax money to pay for your mistakes? I don't think so!

Ishmael's theory about home ownership is a scam job.

Most Americans don't ever want to cooperate with each other the way Immigrants do. Roommates live together when they have to, not because they want to, and certainly not to build a business together the way immigrants will. The Immigrants succeed because of good old fashioned teamwork which a lot of America is sorely missing now. If I did want to do it, finding a partner would be next to impossible. I already made an offer and look at all the excuses these idiot children came up with! This is all in addition to the basic fact that many people don't earn enough to save up the money for a down payment on land, even by cutting out all the spendthrift behavior. I know plenty more people personally, who would own land if that were the case - including me.

 

[Ishmael]

Libertarianism accusing their opposition of fear mongering is like you accusing me of name calling.

Oh, the irony.


And sigh - the "extent" to which I believe programs should exist, is
a) support those who cannot earn their own income. Social Security Disability & SSI address that. It's very hard to discuss that issue, though, when you have Ishmael waving around his utter ignorance about SSD's draconian standards for eligibility. There are no private companies that will provide coverage and benefits for those who cannot earn money and pay into it beforehand - not even Mutual of Omaha or Unum.
b) assist and rehabilitate those who are in need of public assistance, and who potentially can work. Get them off of public assistance without throwing them to the wolves.

Under no circumstance have I ever said I wanted federal programs to buy houses for the poor. This thread was made using Miles's and Ishmael's own words and very little more than that, as a way of demonstrating the laughable absurdity of their claim that home ownership is easy. The point of this thread is it is not as easy as Ishmael and Miles claim it is. I've said this repeatedly. The point of this thread is not that anyone wants the government to buy people houses.

I've said the above more than once as an answer to your question.

You're still an idiot.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

Ok, lets assume you cannot afford to save for the downpayment on a home after you cut out the wasteful and unnecessary spending, you have indeed made some bad choices and are paying the price for them. Btw, there are programs out there where there is NO required downpayment for first time buyer. But if you didn't get a decent education (you dropped out of schooll, wasn't willing to work and go to college, etc) or you have failed to meet your obligations and now have a sorry credit record, it is indeed your choices that prevent you from buying a home. Maybe you only went to high school, took a low paying job, got married and had three children...no way you can afford to buy a home....and who is to blame for those decisions that now make it difficult for you to save money?

Apparently you did not want to buy a home more than you wanted other things. So are we all supposed to kick in even more tax money to pay for your mistakes? I don't think so!

Your point is well made. But you're still debating with a fool.

Ishmael

 

[sigh]

Just a few points sigh.

First of all the poverty level is subjective. Always has been.

The census and IRS data that goes into making up the poverty level figures has always been subject to question. From communal households to kids still living at home but whose earnings are under the poverty level. It is suspected, but not proven, that the actual poverty level census is far less than that which is reported.

I see. But it was okay when Jim used that data to add substance to a claim he was making, and okay again when you then reiterated that claim in your very next paragraph (see below). The numbers are apparently not good only if they're used to argue against you, is that it? tsk, tsk Ishmael. Dropping that anvil on your toe has GOT to hurt.

The last point is that the trend was downwards without welfare, etc. Look at the poverty figures and draw a graph from '59 to '01. You might be surprised by what you see.

Ishmael

And my point was simply that Social Security (though not welfare) was in effect long before those numbers started to be reported. Besides, you must have missed this quote from my post (Jim didn't; he picked right up on it):

"I'm not at all sure that reduction (in poverty) was due to social programs"

And thanks, but I don't need to graph out the decline in poverty from '59 to '01. Math and I are old friends. I can visualize it quite nicely.

 

[sigh]

I've said the above more than once as an answer to your question.

Ah. Well perhaps you did. I must admit I tend to skip big chunks of your diatribes for the sake of brevity.

My apology.

But then I have to go back to "what's the point?". Hey, bitching is fun. I like to do it too, but it's easy to point out problems. However, unless you come up with a solution, the only benefit of bitching is its entertainment value.

And therefore, since we're just here for the entertainment, who wants to get naked and go swim in some jello?

 

[Ishmael]

I see. But it was okay when Jim used that data to add substance to a claim he was making, and okay again when you then reiterated that claim in your very next paragraph (see below). The numbers are apparently not good only if they're used to argue against you, is that it? tsk, tsk Ishmael. Dropping that anvil on your toe has GOT to hurt.



And my point was simply that Social Security (though not welfare) was in effect long before those numbers started to be reported. Besides, you must have missed this quote from my post (Jim didn't; he picked right up on it):

"I'm not at all sure that reduction (in poverty) was due to social programs"

And thanks, but I don't need to graph out the decline in poverty from '59 to '01. Math and I are old friends. I can visualize it quite nicely.

Jim's claim not withstanding. I was merely pointing out the possible discrepancy in the figures (discrepacies that would enure to Jim's benefit by the way.) and the fact that the downward trend appears to be not only linear, but initiated prior to '64. In any event, I wasn't posting in support of Jim. Just commenting on the figures posted.

There is also the possibility that Jim was speaking of SSI not SS. Although SS did begin in the 30's it had no appreciable effect one way or another. It seems that folks of that era knew that SS was merely a supplement and not a retirement program.

Ishmael

 

[sigh]

Now we could argue (and maybe we will)....

No, hon, I don't want to argue with you. Make love, not war. That's my motto (okay, it's not original, but you have to admit it sounds like fun).

Did you know that your AV is a huge turn on for me?

 

[sigh]

Jim's claim not withstanding. I was merely pointing out the possible discrepancy in the figures (discrepacies that would enure to Jim's benefit by the way.) and the fact that the downward trend appears to be not only linear, but initiated prior to '64. In any event, I wasn't posting in support of Jim. Just commenting on the figures posted.

There is also the possibility that Jim was speaking of SSI not SS. Although SS did begin in the 30's it had no appreciable effect one way or another. It seems that folks of that era knew that SS was merely a supplement and not a retirement program.

Ishmael

All points conceded to everyone because I'm tired of the argument.

Jello, Ishmael, Jello. Get naked and in the Jello now.

Doesn't anybody just want to have fun anymore?

 

[Ishmael]

All points conceded to everyone because I'm tired of the argument.

Jello, Ishmael, Jello. Get naked and in the Jello now.

Doesn't anybody just want to have fun anymore?

Jello?? Damn it, doesn't anyone do Wesson Oil and Slip-n-slides anymore?

Nekid "Twister".

But Jello's ok too. I like all flavors. <grin>

Ishmael

 

[Le Jacquelope]

You're still an idiot.

Ishmael

And you're still a retard who's in utter denial of reality.

Oh and a complete loser at election time.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

What the hell is "our joint defense?"

Aren't you familiar with Cheech and Chong?

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

I'm not a libertarian, but I do believe in many of the precepts. I do believe there should be a minimum safety net, but that "net" is very low, bare subsistance...I don't want anyone to starve.

As we've talked about in many threads, the "poverty level" is very subjective and very transient. A high school graduate gets out of school and works at an auto body shop for minimum wage, then gets a few pay increases but is still considered "poor". Five years later, an Uncle decides to help him with the down payment on a garage, he works diligently and 10 years later he's making 200-300 grand. He works for a few more years, sells out, retires, diversifies his portfolio and puts most of it into safe funds that keep growing, but throw off a minimal income stream (kids are through college, the house is paid for and there's no reason for lots of income)....now he's low income again.

There's a lot of fluctuation between the income levels. Very few people stay in $7 per hour jobs for their lifetimes as their sole source of income. (are you an exception LT?)

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

And you're still a retard who's in utter denial of reality.

Oh and a complete loser at election time.

Ish, did LT just inform us that you're running for president?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Ok, lets assume you cannot afford to save for the downpayment on a home after you cut out the wasteful and unnecessary spending, you have indeed made some bad choices and are paying the price for them.

So those millions who are, for instance, below the poverty line, are all there because they made bad choices?

That ignorance is showing yet again.

(Meanwhile, insanely rich people are declaring bankruptcy to skip out on their debts...)
(Not that I'd expect anyone in here to understand the connection )

Btw, there are programs out there where there is NO required downpayment for first time buyer.

You mean

*gasp*

Government programs? ?

You're ever so right. But by God the FHA/HUD program and others like it, are creations of the big bad evil mean collectivist communist socialist taxpayer funded red menace GOVERNMENT. Oh, for the love of Ayn Rand, how could you suggest such a thing?

But if you didn't get a decent education (you dropped out of schooll, wasn't willing to work and go to college, etc) or you have failed to meet your obligations and now have a sorry credit record, it is indeed your choices that prevent you from buying a home.

Nope. You've missed the mark again.

Maybe you only went to high school, took a low paying job, got married and had three children...no way you can afford to buy a home....and who is to blame for those decisions that now make it difficult for you to save money?

The easiest way to tell a Libertarian is when they pigeonhole the poor into lame stereotypes such as this.

You've completely left out people whose jobs were wiped out by overseas outsourcing.. among so many other factors.

Apparently you did not want to buy a home more than you wanted other things. So are we all supposed to kick in even more tax money to pay for your mistakes? I don't think so!

"Poverty is the fault of the people who are poor."