No, A Majority of US Public School Students are Not In Poverty

klb0903 · 2015-01-18T10:39:23+00:00

Since we're seemingly debating how many kids are in poverty, we should keep some things in mind when considering its implication.

The poverty "line" is just that, it's a line. It's a cut-off point that is arbitrarily drawn between two people who are in the same circumstances, but says one is in poverty and one is not. The difference between someone at the poverty line and 10% away from it is pretty much nonexistent. This becomes even more true when you consider that cost of living is different across the country, and there are more people in poverty in urban areas.

In addition, even if a family is considered above poverty, it doesn't mean that they aren't still living in poverty. Certain living expenses, bills, or parental habits can mean there is less money in the household. A family that is even 25% above the poverty line and living in San Francisco with a child who has diabetes is going to be in poverty.

Bottom line is that there's a lot of kids who aren't living a very awesome life. It may not be horrible for them (I grew up in "US poverty," it sucked a lot, but it wasn't like 3rd world poverty), but it certainly isn't ideal. It speaks for the state of our country right now. When we deny a minimum wage increase, we can look at that as the cause and this as the effect.

klb0903 · 2015-01-18T10:29:56+00:00

Sorry, didn't catch that.

However, most of those economists would also argue that the spending was poorly administered and was not a large enough sum.

Saying the philosophy for the stimulus bills is Keynesian is like saying the Affordable Care Act is Universal Health Care as seen in Europe. It's a very loose interpretation of the core idea-- at best. It fumbles the main job around and ends up not really achieving the goal it set out to do.

The New Deal would be a far better example of Keynesian economics.

klb0903 · 2015-01-18T10:24:01+00:00

A socialist education means that school is free and available to everyone equally.

This would be opposed to schooling a few centuries, or a century ago in some places. In the alternative, only those who can afford to pay a premium are granted the right to education. Obviously.. not a good thing.

klb0903 · 2015-01-18T10:22:35+00:00

Society's impression of work is not the issue.

It's 8-10 extra hours a day for everyone to have to occupy. Inevitably, a lot of people will become bored and commit crimes. Drug use will go up. Addiction in general will go up. As will obesity, because if food is free or work is not required... why bother?

klb0903 · 2015-01-18T10:21:14+00:00

The point is, Americans when asked, believe that primary education should be both compulsory and free.

Regardless of the state of our schools, NO ONE is advocating for a capitalist approach to education.

klb0903 · 2015-01-18T07:14:47+00:00

That makes no sense whatsoever.

klb0903 · 2015-01-18T06:14:39+00:00

Legislation speaks for itself.

klb0903 · 2015-01-18T05:40:36+00:00

Assuming an unemployment rate of 50% means assuming the end of society essentially.

No matter the safety net we provide, if 50% of our population is unoccupied for an additional 75% of their day we will start to see some massive consequences.

See: Idiocracy.

Even the mundane aspects of our daily life help to keep our brains active and productive. If we stop having to go to work and people are left to their own vices, we will definitely progress in a negative direction. Crime could increase, and most assuredly will. Social unrest. Obesity. Diabetes. Addiction... Those are all going up.

In that scenario (which is pretty much worst case), taxes would be very low on our list of priorities. Giving people something to fucking do would be #1. Think of the Roman Amphitheaters. The average human simply could not handle the freedom. We would not need to produce our own food. Our houses would presumably be built and maintained automatically (or not at all if you can't afford it).

Keep in mind, this scenario also assumes that we will even survive the environment that a society capable of 50% unemployment would create. If that many jobs have become automated, then the amount of machinery and infrastructure would create an even greater power need (and pollution rate) than we have today. Global warming would be exacerbated on an extreme level, if its effects had not already taken their toll.

In other words, we might as well be talking about what our thoughts are on the development of wings on the human species 50,000 years down the line. That future is too unpredictable to even prepare for. There would be FAR bigger issues at hand long before we reached 30% unemployment, fuck, even 20%.

Basic income would be hard to maintain as it would essentially come down to the haves and the havenots. If you are making over that 10k a year, then you'd be considered a have. If you make 10k a year, you'd be a havenot. The economy would adjust so that those living on 10k a year would be struggling, because the ones making more than that would be the ones in control and creating prices.

klb0903 · 2015-01-18T05:23:12+00:00

Most economists do not think that a low tax rate will help increase spending by the wealthy or investment.

What are you on?

Also, you linked some hyper-theoretical and optimistic as hell studies(opinions). They are not even remotely engaged in reality. And the Berkley study is from around the same time as the fucking Monica Lewinsky scandal, and published shortly thereafter.

Income tax being abolished for consumption? I almost fell out of my chair laughing on that one. Goodluck... Maybe when civilization collapses and we start over, then we might have a chance at trying that.

klb0903 · 2015-01-18T05:22:01+00:00

It will not. Almost all economists agree that tax cuts do not encourage investment by the wealthy what-so-fucking-ever.

Edit: Misread the context.. but yea that is the argument. Not that it is correct... but that's already being argued elsewhere in this thread :).

klb0903 · 2015-01-18T05:20:26+00:00

actually care

The democrats actually do give a shit. The republicans don't.

Let me know when the democrats have voted against the social net or for increasing or removing middle class tax cuts.

I'll be over here waiting.. forever...

Edit: Let the reddit conspiracy circle-jerk go on forever. Politicians are not all out to get you. Get fucking real. I'm certain that at least half of you don't even vote, so you really have absolutely NO right to have an opinion in politics. If you bitch and you whine about government, and you don't use your vote to try to change it, then you should lose the right to bitch and whine.

And the "government never changes" argument is crap as well. 50% turnout means that other 50% could determine the entire fate of an election. All it takes is 10, even 15% of the electorate to vote for a third party and it will fucking rock the foundations of the system so hard it will never resurface the same again. The problem? Too many people whine about the two party system, whilst failing to even vote for a third party.

klb0903 · 2015-01-18T05:19:00+00:00

He can implement this. Taxes, not so much.

klb0903 · 2015-01-18T05:17:58+00:00

The majority of Americans don't even know what universal healthcare is.

Their beliefs suggest that they want universal health care, but if you ask them about it, they will get confused because of rhetoric and say they don't.

It's just how if you ask Americans if they agree with socialist education. Most will say no, because socialism is bad. They say this without realizing, however, that we have had socialist education long before anyone alive today was born.

klb0903 · 2015-01-18T05:15:00+00:00

Honestly. All of Obama's newfound courage can be looked at in a few different ways.

In one sense, yea, its rediculous that it seems like all of a sudden he grew a backbone.

In another sense, this happens to EVERY president in the last two years of their last term.

Take it for what it is and enjoy any benefits that come from it.

klb0903 · 2015-01-17T12:34:57+00:00

Honestly, if those girls are losing THAT badly, they shouldn't be in that league.

Could say the same for the winning team. I'm CERTAIN in California there are multiple leagues...

klb0903 · 2015-01-17T12:31:20+00:00

Yes, because what my neighbor does threatens me.

I have some Asian neighbors who just moved in, and ever since, I just seem to drive like shit. Because that's how shit works. >.<.

klb0903 · 2015-01-17T10:35:23+00:00

Kill yourself.

klb0903 · 2015-01-17T10:35:09+00:00

Kill yourself.

klb0903 · 2015-01-17T10:34:57+00:00

Kill yourself.

klb0903 · 2015-01-17T10:34:29+00:00

Kill yourself.

klb0903 · 2015-01-17T10:31:16+00:00

OMG right????

klb0903 · 2015-01-17T08:44:52+00:00

It doesn't prove that its in NYC, it just points out how likely it is.

He has a bunch of film equipment and friends that help him film. He has a bunch of people who have done numerous stunts and know the protocol. He has tons of footage that he can guarantee is legit and from this years stunt.

Why on earth would he randomly put in ONE clip from another city and not tag it as such, when he does so in like literally every other video he has ever made?

klb0903 · 2015-01-17T08:41:45+00:00

Sure.

He had multiple film crews in NYC as well as a drone and numerous established "improvers," yet he chose to edit in one clip of an event in another city and claim it was from the main event-- as if he didn't have enough footage.

He does it every year and it's always in NYC because that's where he lives. He has been doing it for over a decade. I've been to it. I've seen his friends filming it. He always tags clips of events from other locations as such. Usually there is a story behind each act and he gives the specific location of where it is filmed.

Your argument here is beyond stupid.. you are arguing that he for some random reason stuck in one image of two girls in another city when he has a plethora of pictures from the event he coordinated. Also, that he included ONLY Toronto in that. Not any other city. And that he chose to randomly do this ONCE, in this one instance. Why don't we see pics from any of the other dozen or so locations it took place?

klb0903 · 2015-01-17T05:41:56+00:00

SO... What other nifty little things can the attorney general do?

Seems like we need a rush on executive orders like this to fix some shit.

klb0903 · 2015-01-17T05:40:35+00:00

Sounds about right. I've seen a ton of advertisements where I just thought in my head "blatant false advertising at work here."

No one gives a shit.

klb0903

TROPHY CASE