***Official Political Discussion Thread***

9,043
17,785
Joined Jan 16, 2011
Here’s the thing you don’t acknowledge. In times of economic downturn such as the one we are in now, by and large most people reduce spending/giving and increase savings. Right now those who are rich are scaling back as much money as we have seen at any point in the last 50 years.
Exactly. The data shows that in times of great need, charities are much less reliable than government programs in alleviating the need.

But trying to show that to Delk results in an argument about his beliefs. dwalk31 dwalk31 , nobody can see your beliefs; we can only see these numbers.
 

Methodical Management

Staff member
Co-Founder
6,372
20,743
Joined Dec 8, 1999
The reason TANF clearly doesn’t make sense is because it already has term limits similar to what I’m advocating.

Typically, the conversation in here has been about SNAP. As I said before, RustyShackleford RustyShackleford said it won’t work basically because he doesn’t believe in individuals/charitable organizations to give at the same levels. I disagree.

This isn’t about wealthy donors. Tons of middle class families will contribute to these causes. Same for churches. This isn’t some foreign concept. It already happens; I simply think that it will increase if the term limits I describe are implemented.

The funding saved with the term limits could be redirected to education to further help empower families in need.

The idea that term limits with a shift to a community-based model means someone doesn’t care about the community is silly imo.

If you don’t trust that the community will do the right thing, just say that.
We're talking about providing food to Americans in dire need. Why even leave it to chance? Why threaten to cut them off?

We already have data regarding the reliability of donor contributions during economic downturns. That picture is unlikely to improve.
This is your vision for a more just America? This is empowering?


Or perhaps you think the best solution to food deserts is to put Frito-Lay in charge.

Your argument is rife with false dilemmas. What prevents a community from developing their own public food programs that work in tandem with SNAP and support local agriculture? The lack of term limits?
Donations and tax contributions are not mutually exclusive - nor are food assistance programs and education spending.

And you think we should choose between food and education?

 
15,603
21,691
Joined Dec 15, 2012
We're talking about providing food to Americans in dire need. Why even leave it to chance? Why threaten to cut them off?

We already have data regarding the reliability of donor contributions during economic downturns. That picture is unlikely to improve.
This is your vision for a more just America? This is empowering?


Or perhaps you think the best solution to food deserts is to put Frito-Lay in charge.

Your argument is rife with false dilemmas. What prevents a community from developing their own public food programs that work in tandem with SNAP and support local agriculture? The lack of term limits?
Donations and tax contributions are not mutually exclusive - nor are food assistance programs and education spending.

And you think we should choose between food and education?

We should add in the fact that the paycheck protection program and EIDL grants that he stole money from has cost about $1.5T this year too.
 
8,691
1,409
Joined Dec 30, 2006
Exactly. The data shows that in times of great need, charities are much less reliable than government programs in alleviating the need.

But trying to show that to Delk results in an argument about his beliefs. dwalk31 dwalk31 , nobody can see your beliefs; we can only see these numbers.
This is the best response to what I've proposed. Basically my initial post said this is what Rusty responds with. I can't argue the data.

I can only argue that we have no data from the same situation. And like you said, arguing over beliefs is pointless.
 

Mark Antony

Supporter
45,901
47,524
Joined Apr 30, 2010
The Greatest Wealth Transfer Program in the U.S. for Whites


From 1862 to 1986, the United States government ran a homestead program that gave 2,992,058 white settlers and European immigrants (both documented and undocumented) a minimum of 160 acres of land from the Mississippi River to the West coast of America, including the Alaskan territory. Authorized by the Homestead Act of 1862, this land giveaway program ended for all participating states in 1976 and ended for land awards in Alaska in 1986.



White recipients in the land giveaway program were recruited through a widespread, government-sponsored advertising campaign in newspapers in America and Europe. The land was awarded to applicants who promised to live on it and develop the land for five years. Title to the property vested at the end of this five-year period.



Claimants paid total filing fees of $18 and $1.25 per acre after six-months of residency. These below-market land acquisition rates essentially made the land a free gift to the recipients.


Congress passed additional laws in 1873 that allowed the government to award larger tracts of land to these white settlers and immigrants.





:sick: This country man. Again "lucky that black people are looking for equality and not revenge".
 
8,691
1,409
Joined Dec 30, 2006
We're talking about providing food to Americans in dire need. Why even leave it to chance? Why threaten to cut them off?

We already have data regarding the reliability of donor contributions during economic downturns. That picture is unlikely to improve.
This is your vision for a more just America? This is empowering?


Or perhaps you think the best solution to food deserts is to put Frito-Lay in charge.

Your argument is rife with false dilemmas. What prevents a community from developing their own public food programs that work in tandem with SNAP and support local agriculture? The lack of term limits?
Donations and tax contributions are not mutually exclusive - nor are food assistance programs and education spending.

And you think we should choose between food and education?

I don't think you have to choose between education and food. The discussion is about having both.

Your argument is you think that the private side will not meet the requisite contribution thresholds. I just disagree.

Performance of charities in economic downturns is telling. But that doesn't mean that what I'm proposing won't have different results than a general economic downturn. Surely you would give more to those causes than you do now in that situation, right? Or do you think your personal giving will remain the same or decrease?

I often use the example of St. Jude that relies heavily of private donations.

My proposal is that it is in tandem. There are community food banks and charities already. And the government funding would not end. It is still a vital portion, there are just individual lifetime term limits.

You are actually the one creating a false dilemma. I am not saying to get rid of public funding for food to fund education. I am actually saying that we can do both, better.

Side note: I'm super cool with ending mass incarceration to fund reparations for black descendants of slaves in America.
 
96,628
84,097
Joined Mar 30, 2007
This the level of stupid right now.. wanna guess which party this guy belongs to dwalk31 dwalk31



vs

 
8,691
1,409
Joined Dec 30, 2006
Here’s the thing you don’t acknowledge. In times of economic downturn such as the one we are in now, by and large most people reduce spending/giving and increase savings. Right now those who are rich are scaling back as much money as we have seen at any point in the last 50 years.

Here is why that’s problematic. Using this downturn as an example, most economists agree this will be a two year downturn and we have had the highest unemployment we have had in the last century. Your proposal is a nuclear bomb of bad things happening all at once. Rich reduce spending, extended unemployment And joblessness which leads to foreclosures and homelessness, followed by a prolonged period of economic downturn because 70% of our GDP is based on discretionary spending.

In situations like we are in now, how well do you think a reduction in spending/giving from the rich and an increase in unemployment are going to bode with term limits on programs such as SNAP which you keep erroneously claiming there are no term limits even though there are?

Also if the community would do the right thing, why do we have homelessness now?
I addressed the majority of what you said in the post above.

SNAP has term limits that are eliminated by meeting certain work requirements. But you know that, and that isn't what I am discussing.

Why doesn't the government handle homelessness now?

Aside from being a ridiculous question on its face, there are issues surrounding homelessness beyond access to funds, including mental health. But you knew that already too.
 
8,691
1,409
Joined Dec 30, 2006
96,628
84,097
Joined Mar 30, 2007

yobyellav

formerly cord15
5,162
2,837
Joined Sep 12, 2006
The disdain for jay always makes me chuckle; not mad at it.

Was that lady supposed to be countering the idea that support for trump is rooted in racism when she said white men just to revert to when they were unequivocally on top of the pecking order? :rofl::rofl:Show needs new writers.

No basis in any kind of science. :smh::smh:

Trump jr. looks soft as hell. He would’ve went awol at the first opportunity.
 
15,603
21,691
Joined Dec 15, 2012
I addressed the majority of what you said in the post above.

SNAP has term limits that are eliminated by meeting certain work requirements. But you know that, and that isn't what I am discussing.

Why doesn't the government handle homelessness now?

Aside from being a ridiculous question on its face, there are issues surrounding homelessness beyond access to funds, including mental health. But you knew that already too.
I certainly don't disagree that the US as a whole needs to do a better job funding homeless shelters and mental health initiatives. Republicans in my state have largely defunded mental health institutions to the point that there are now only 3 left in the entire state, but im sure you knew that as you continually vote for it.

38 Million people are on SNAP and 70% of the people on SNAP have children. Your "proposal" basically puts the most vulnerable population in america in the hands of whether or not 1% of american's feel generous that month. Your entire thesis is that people choose to be poor which is absolutely ludicrous

If tax incentives worked as you claim they do, then the 14% reduction in corporate tax rate with the TCJA would have led to a significant increase in wages which would have also reduced that amount of people who qualify for SNAP, and a reduction in need for welfare programs but alas, here we are, wages are rising at the same rate they have been for decades.

Capture.JPG
 

yobyellav

formerly cord15
5,162
2,837
Joined Sep 12, 2006
6,931
4,763
Joined Jul 16, 2017
What did Farrakhan do now? My go to guesses with dude are antisemitism or homophobia, but maybe he switched it up.
I mean...let’s say 80 percent of what he says is great and you get motivated by it and do better. And you have the mind and common sense to disagree with the other. Should you get cancelled for it? Double standard with trump supporters who follow a clown that says 10 percent good stuff and 90 percent utter trans, homo, Islam, Jew phobic comments and ACTIONS with his laws
 
8,691
1,409
Joined Dec 30, 2006
38 Million people are on SNAP and 70% of the people on SNAP have children. Your "proposal" basically puts the most vulnerable population in america in the hands of whether or not 1% of american's feel generous that month. Your entire thesis is that people choose to be poor which is absolutely ludicrous
So many errors in this statement.

1. We discussed that many students rely on food at schools. Nothing in my proposals changes that. And I think a discussion on ensuring that those children are fed no matter the time limits are is important. That is a reasonable and very important issue. Great point.

2. Where are you getting 1%? Do you think only 1% of Americans donate to charities? That's ridiculous.

3. That isn't my assertion at all. I KNOW that people don't choose to be poor. I am interested in ideas to promote black empowerment.

If you think it is a bad idea and the status quo is better for black people, cool. We can agree to disagree. But don't pretend that my proposal is from a place of not caring about the vulnerable because it is. I think my proposal provides more help in total.

As we discussed with homelessness, there is more at play than just access to funds.
 
Top Bottom
  AdBlock Detected

Sure, ad-blocking software does a great job at blocking ads, but it also blocks some useful and important features of our website. For the best possible site experience please take a moment to disable your AdBlocker or head over to our upgrade page to donate for an ad-free experience Upgrade now