South Is Usa's Poverty Belt, Gop Wants Same For Whole Country

[Vigile]

 

Another welfare queen:

 

 

 

 

Welfare queen caused by FDR.

Damn straight, had nothing to do with the dust bowl and libertarian environmental policies or hoover or the massive, massive gap in wealth equality all predating fdr. It was the socialist who came after who caused it all cause they're evil that way.

[Vigile]

If you're going to tell me I'm wrong, it might be a good idea to not post an article that agrees with me. Just a tip.

[Vigile]

You have reading comprehension issues.

 

I said that dust bowl was caused by libertarian policy. A free for all with no thought of environmental destruction caused farmers to over farm leading to massive soil erosion. This is what happens in an unregulated world.

[Vigile]

You're a special person man . A special, special person. If someone told you the sky was blue, you'd retort, uh, uh, then proceed to tell them the moon isn't made of cheese even though no mention of the moon was ever made,

 

Many of these initiatives put in place following the Dust Bowl continue today as part of the U.S. Farm Bill, which provides the single largest source of federal funding for conservation. Congress is now debating the bill’s reauthorization, and funding for it could be decided this year.Experts agree that the Farm Bill’s conservation programs have helped prevent another Dust Bowl from sweeping the nation.

 

http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/regions/northamerica/when-the-dust-settled.xml

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

I realize that different constructions can be put on the following, but a recent study on easiest/hardest counties in the US to live in ranks metro areas with educated populations highest. The "hardest" counties to live in are largely clustered in the South, with the lowest one in eastern Kentucky. From an article about the study:

 

"Six of the top easiest counties are suburbs or Washington, D.C., and none of the mostly urban areas are in the bottom 20 percent.

 

The study determined Clay County in Eastern Kentucky is the nation's hardest county in which to reside. Its median income is $22,496 and just 7.6 percent of residents hold a bachelor's degree. About 45 percent of it residents are obese.

 

While the D.C. suburbs dominate the top of the rankings, the top spot went to Los Alamos County, N.M., home of Los Alamos National Laboratory. The county's media income is more than $118,000."

 

Link to news article about the study:

 

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/07/which_are_the_hardest_counties_in_nj_to_live_in.html

 

Here's an interactive map:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/26/upshot/where-are-the-hardest-places-to-live-in-the-us.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=UP_WAT_20140630&bicmp=AD&bicmlukp=WT.mc_id&bicmst=1388552400000&bicmet=1420088400000&_r=3

 

Thanks for the map link. From it:

 

The Upshot came to this conclusion by looking at six data points for each county in the United States: education (percentage of residents with at least a bachelor’s degree), median household income, unemployment rate, disability rate, life expectancy and obesity. We then averaged each county’s relative rank in these categories to create an overall ranking.

 

They say they thought of other criteria like environmental quality but couldn't get stats from all counties.

 

The disability rate is calculated from the % of people collecting disability payments.  One might argue that disability payments motivate people not to work and that liberal policies are the problem. I don't know whether there's a data-driven response to that argument.  I do think life expectancy and obesity rankings are interesting and useful to look at.

[Vigile]

The invisible hand sure does like to create disasters site. Damn that hand.

[Vigile]

You should be the party spokesman. With your way of explaining the ideal world, surely everyone will want to get on board.

[Vigile]

Yet you CHOOSE to live in society and benefit from it. Classic case of wanting the whole cake.

 

Moreover, according to you, you choose to participate in politics. Hence, stop was ring your talent scaring kids and be seen spokesman.

[Vigile]

Again, how they steal from you? You have a gun.

[Vigile]

Btw, I chose to live where I'm happy and the government has limited contact with me. Was I wrong? I should have stayed home and been the victim of a grevieious crime such as yourself?

[Castiel233]

I can't speak for the US, but the UK has a system in place to drive down wages and ensure unemployment. It is called Workfare and is collusion between big business and the broadly hated collation government of the Tories and Liberal Democrats. In essence:

 

Unemployed person in receipt of benefits is offered the chance to work for large national company.

 

A carrot is offered stating that it might lead to a permanent paid employment

 

Naturally it rarely does. A corporation has no incentive to pay workers, when it can get them for free.

 

Companies have an incentive to their shareholders to “employ” the unemployed and pay them nothing.

 

Should an unemployed person be bullied or harassed at “work” and walk out, Government hands them a lengthy benefit ban forcing them into destitution. Vulnerable people do and have killed themselves, including the mentally ill and those suffering terminal illness.

 

The UK Government has believers in the cabinet including Ian Duncan Smith, nick named the minister for manslaughter, whose “reforms” are killing his fellow country men and women.

 

 

[RipVanWinkle]

"OK...for starters, you are an attorney, you ever heard of Wickard v. Filburn? That effectively told a farmer he could not grow wheat to make bread to feed to his own family. http://en.wikipedia....kard_v._Filburn see the link for further perusal." Burnedout

 

 

I read the Filburn case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Filburn was a case that

dealt with the limits of the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. It

gave broad powers to regulate even intrastate commerce if it had a significant impact on a specific interstate commerce regulated by Congress. It most certainly did not

allow or decide anything that would prevent farmers from making a living from a small farm.The case upheld a congressional law that limited the number of acres of wheat a farmer could grow for intrastate consumption for home consumption. Filburn had grown

11.9 acres of wheat in excess of the amount allowed by the Act. He had between 10 and 11 additional acres on which he had also grown wheat for home consumption. Nowhere

does the Opinion that the farmer could not make a living on the farm because of the

Act.He still had between 10 and 11 acres that was free to and did

in fact grow wheat on. His production rate was 20 barrels per acre, which means he produced between 200 and 220 barrels of wheat for his own consumption, which was well

within the law.

 

The farmer in this case did not claim that the regulations amounted to the unlawful

taking of property without due process of law, which he surely would have done if

these regulations wiped out his ability to make a living.so that did not happen.

 

In fact in 1941 the farmers who cooperated with the Dept. Of Agriculture got about 2.5 times the price on the world market. Moreover, this act required a vote of the farmers who grew wheat before it could have gone in effect.

 

This Act did not do what you thought it did.The gov't cannot take property of its citizens without fair compensation. Regulations can under certain circumstances amount to a "taking" entitling the owner to compensation. One can find aberrant cases if you look long enough. But even if you could find one such case (which Filburn is not )it would not establish that the policy of FDR was to have the peer take from the poor to

solve the problem of the poor.

 

Your response to this post was premature, which is my fault. I am a lousy typist and I was in the middle of drafting the post when you responded to it. Sorry. bill

[RankStranger]

 

"OK...for starters, you are an attorney, you ever heard of Wickard v. Filburn? That effectively told a farmer he could not grow wheat to make bread to feed to his own family. http://en.wikipedia....kard_v._Filburn see the link for further perusal." Burnedout

I read the Wickare case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Wickarew was a case that dealt with the limits of the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. It gave broad powers to regulate even

intrastate commerce if it had a significant impact on a specific interstate commerce regulated by

Congress. It most certainly did not allow decide anything that would prevent farmers from making a living from a small farm.The case upheld a congressional law that limited the number of acres of wheat a farmer could grow for intrastate consumption for home consumption. Wickare had grown 11.9 acres of wheat in excess of the amount allowed by the Act. He had about 11.1 additional acres on which he had also grown wheat for home consumption. Nowhere does the Opinion that the farmer could not make a living on the farm because of the Act.He still had between 10 and 11 acres that was free to and did

in fact grow wheat on. His production rate was 20 barrels per acre, which means he produced between 200 and 220 barrels of wheat for his own consumption, which was well

within the law.

The farmer in this case did not claim that the regulations amounted to the unlawful taking of property without due process of law, which surely would have done if these

regulations wiped out his ability to make a living.so that did not happen.

 

 

 

The fact is, it DID limit how much he could grow.  How dare the government tell him how much he could grow or not grow, or engage in commerce with.  That is just one of many tyrannical acts.  There are plenty of others, but it was HIS land, HIS crops, HIS investment, HIS... and how dare the government tell him what he could or could not grow and engage in commerce with.  FUCK THEM!

So do you disagree with the Holy Constitution? We all know about the commerce clause.

[RipVanWinkle]

"MThat was a usurpation of the Constitution. Say what you will, but I don't see why everybody else's problem is mine. "

 

The above statement reflects your true colors.

My updated post is now complete. (I hope) We are all on this planet together ,

are we not? bill

[florduh]

Say what you will, but I don't see why everybody else's problem is mine.

 

It's because we achieve a greater benefit as a society when we cooperate and share responsibilities. People who believe each man is an island unto himself are rare in civilized and industrialized societies. There will never be an understanding with such a divergent view of humanity and our individual role as part of it.

[florduh]

That is fine if it is voluntary, but forced participation is tyranny.  

 

 

Well and good, but in reality we've seen that the majority must be forced to play fair. That's why the people give government power, to implement cooperative benefits to all of us even though everyone may still have his own idea of how that should be broken down.

[florduh]

Whatever.

[RipVanWinkle]

And if the people don't volunteer? Let them eat cake? bill

[Vigile]

 

Btw, I chose to live where I'm happy and the government has limited contact with me. Was I wrong? I should have stayed home and been the victim of a grevieious crime such as yourself?

 

Well...if you are going to lecture people here on how they should be, you might have chosen to stay and fight. You look like an arm chair quarterback when you do that.

feel free to quote me on these lectures and these should.

 

In any case, any libertarian worth his oats would know that where and how a man chooses to live is his biz. Borders are neither here nor there.

[Vigile]

 

 

"MThat was a usurpation of the Constitution. Say what you will, but I don't see why everybody else's problem is mine. "

 

The above statement reflects your true colors.

My updated post is now complete. (I hope) We are all on this planet together ,

are we not? bill

Yes..we are on the same planet, and it is fine to come together, but VOLUNTARILY not by force of a government gun to your head.

And if everyone doesn't volunteer, we should allow their actions to harm or kill us?

 

You've many times said you'd kill someone who hurt you daughter. Why shouldn't society FORCE you to behave in ways that doesn't harm them too? Are you better than society?

[Vigile]

 

 

 

That is fine if it is voluntary, but forced participation is tyranny.

 

 

Well and good, but in reality we've seen that the majority must be forced to play fair. That's why the people give government power, to implement cooperative benefits to all of us even though everyone may still have his own idea of how that should be broken down.

That is called Tyranny of the Majority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

You misuse this term on a weekly basis. I'd suggest you reread (or more probably, read) on liberty, where js mill coined the phrase as it's clear you don't understand it.

[mymistake]

 

That is fine if it is voluntary, but forced participation is tyranny.  

 

 

For the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

 

Nobody, I mean nobody, forced you to do anything.  You are free to go out into the wilderness and live off the land.  Nobody put a gun to your head and forced you to buy a house.  Nobody forced you to be part of society.  Everybody had the power and freedom to walk off the grid and disappear.  That you choose to stay is your call.

[Vigile]

You mean commerce which requires public ally funded roads, which requires access to other publicly funded infrastructure, doing business with publicly funded universities? That business? And fish, you mean those fish that were stocked by public dollars? Or do you mean those fish which would disappear completely if every yahoo could just take what he wanted leaving your fellow man without?

 

You can choose to view the world like a toddler, but the rest of us grownups choose to keep you from taking from us.

[Vigile]

You mean commerce which requires public ally funded roads, which requires access to other publicly funded infrastructure, doing business with publicly funded universities? That business? And fish, you mean those fish that were stocked by public dollars? Or do you mean those fish which would disappear completely if every yahoo could just take what he wanted leaving your fellow man without?

 

You can choose to view the world like a toddler, but the rest of us grownups choose to keep you from taking from us.

[Vigile]

 

 

 

 

That is fine if it is voluntary, but forced participation is tyranny.

Well and good, but in reality we've seen that the majority must be forced to play fair. That's why the people give government power, to implement cooperative benefits to all of us even though everyone may still have his own idea of how that should be broken down.

That is called Tyranny of the Majority: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

You misuse this term on a weekly basis. I'd suggest you reread (or more probably, read) on liberty, where js mill coined the phrase as it's clear you don't understand it.

I think it is you who don't understand it. You try to divert an argument when you don't agree with ot by using some made up technicality.

I understand it well enough to know it doesn't refer to every law that was implemented by represented majority. That is obviously a silly and useless notion.

 

have you read on liberty?