To all you Americans who don't own a home

[Miles_Cassidy]

This is a funny thread. LT you are a very funny person.

 

[Miles_Cassidy]

Before you respond i just thought that i would acknowledge that my above post, while seemingly benign, does in fact imply that happiness is evil, owning a house is only for rich people, and libertarians are right about everything.

"But, I'm funny how? Funny like a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh? I'm here to fuckin' amuse you? "

-miles

 

[Le Jacquelope]

"So why then are there so many Americans living below the poverty line? They're all stupid and lazy? And they don't vote Libertarian?" LT

Because our poverty line is significantly higher than say, Mexico's. Their poor don't have homes, cars, cell-phones, or a weight problem...

No, they vote Democrat.

Of course. If we dropped our pesky safety nets and such, our poverty line would be the same as Mexico's. Of course, with people dying off the way they are in Mexico, fewer people would be alive to vote Democrat, wouldn't they?

It simply boggles the mind how much you bend reality to suit your theory that all or even most of the millions of Americans who don't own homes, actually can but don't want to.

Do you realize what would be happening to our economy if so many people could scrounge up $10,000 for such an endeavor?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Before you respond i just thought that i would acknowledge that my above post, while seemingly benign, does in fact imply that happiness is evil, owning a house is only for rich people, and libertarians are right about everything.

"But, I'm funny how? Funny like a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh? I'm here to fuckin' amuse you? "

-miles

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.

 

[Sailbad the Sinner]

I'm guessing you either served in the early 70's when I did, or during the Clinton years...

February 1966 to January 1969.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Are you a moron?

Do you realize how easy it is to own a home?

Lemme tell you how easy.

You just need
1.) A Job.
2.) Decent credit. Not great, but decent.
3.) 10% down payment. (In some cases even less is required.)
4.) The monthly payment cannot be in excess of 30% of the buyer(s) gross monthly income.

It boggles the mind why there are any adults in America who do not own a home.

What's up with that?

(Edited: I intentionally waited to add this part - the above is intended as sarcasm. It's a parody of Phrodeau, Ishmael and Miles, mostly using a direct cut and paste of their own words. Surprise! )

1. I don't have a job
2. I have bad credit (many Americans have either bad or no credit, it's a huge problem)
3. I don't have 10%
4. 30% of zero is zero. If this is true, I really *should* have a house! I can pay that

 

[sweetnpetite]

I don't really like Ish or LT.

Where does that leave me?




(although I think LTs politics are closer to mine- and in this instance I find myself agreeing with his point if not his delivery)

 

[phrodeau]

You can blame the economy for your lack of a job.

What can you blame for your bad credit?

 

[JazzManJim]

Of course. If we dropped our pesky safety nets and such, our poverty line would be the same as Mexico's.

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.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

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.....

 

[miles]

I've said that everyone has a responsibility to one another.

To what extent?

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

It's strange to make comparisons.

In the US, poverty means that you can't afford an HDTV

In Mexico it means that you're not sure if you'll get a chance to eat

Same thing in the Philippines and many other countries around the world.

The thing that bothers me is that the largest segment of society represented in the poverty line are single parents and their kids. The new drug program for eldery bothers me because, by and large, the elderly are wealthier, fewer are in poverty and in most (but not all) cases they have family on whom they can depend on for help. If any group needs additional resources it's these children living in families below the poverty line, not the elderly. But the elderly vote and children do not.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Good question, Miles.

It's a good bet that the answer will eventually fall somewhere to the left of Libertarianism and to the right of Socialism.

 

[LovetoGiveRoses]

Everyone has a responsibility to each other

I'm interested in hearing your answer to Miles' question too.

I agree insofar as we have a responsibility to try and be civil, to follow the laws and live within our judicial system, to act responsibly so as to not injure or destroy each other or each other's property. We should all contribute to our joint defense, have some means of helping those who can't help themselves. What else?

 

[miles]

Good question, Miles.

It's a good bet that the answer will eventually fall somewhere to the left of Libertarianism and to the right of Socialism.

Maybe you ought to think about it before preaching that everyone has a responsibility to everyone else.

There is only one place the money can come from.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I'm interested in hearing your answer to Miles' question too.

I agree insofar as we have a responsibility to try and be civil, to follow the laws and live within our judicial system, to act responsibly so as to not injure or destroy each other or each other's property. We should all contribute to our joint defense, have some means of helping those who can't help themselves. What else?

That would pretty much sum it up for me.

 

[miles]

I'm interested in hearing your answer to Miles' question too.

I agree insofar as we have a responsibility to try and be civil, to follow the laws and live within our judicial system, to act responsibly so as to not injure or destroy each other or each other's property. We should all contribute to our joint defense, have some means of helping those who can't help themselves. What else?

What the hell is "our joint defense?"

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I interpret it to mean "common defense", i.e. defense of our homeland.

 

[Ishmael]

Maybe you ought to think about it before preaching that everyone has a responsibility to everyone else.

There is only one place the money can come from.

The problem is is that he's not preaching 'responsibility'. He's preaching 'obligation'.

Ishmael

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

When we removed price controls on various enterprises, their pricing structure did not collapse LT. Removing or reducing the "safety net" will have not one wit of effect on overall poverty which is more directly related to the level afluence of the society in which the "poor" reside.

 

[Ishmael]

When we removed price controls on various enterprises, their pricing structure did not collapse LT. Removing or reducing the "safety net" will have not one wit of effect on overall poverty which is more directly related to the level afluence of the society in which the "poor" reside.

Stop it bro. You start with that shit and pretty soon you'll have to explain the 2-Sigma curve and all that shit.

And it still wouldn't make a damn bit of difference. <smile>

Ishmael

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

If you remove the safety net then you fall into the timewarp and then BAMMO! it's suddenly 1928...



Liberal Econ 101

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

You know there is a small, but growing group of people, who are enterprising enough to panhandle on the internet. LT could at least try that!

 

[Ishmael]

If you remove the safety net then you fall into the timewarp and then BAMMO! it's suddenly 1928...



Liberal Econ 101

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

 

[Fawkin'Injun]

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..."
...