You're comparing apples to oranges. You can't take a country with 1/10th the population of one and compare it to the other. That's absurd.

And your statement about poverty is also false. But that's for another blog I'm sure.
- quackup

How is it false? Poverty hasnt been proven to beget poverty?
Mental illness hasn't been proven to do the same?
Racial minorities haven't been proven to have less opportunity ?

Are you under the impression it's just laziness and they need to just pull themselves up by their bootstraps?..


Ive stated before Im pretty centrist, but it's these conversations where I come off as a leftie I guess. Cause it's apparent that guys like you are desperate to cover your eyes and ears so that you don't have to feel any guilt over the insanity you spew.

You mentioned in another post accepting longer wait times so that everyone can have access to healthcare is a "compassion" argument.
No dude, it's a human argument

How is it false? Poverty hasnt been proven to beget poverty?
Mental illness hasn't been proven to do the same?
Racial minorities haven't been proven to have less opportunity ?

Are you under the impression it's just laziness and they need to just pull themselves up by their bootstraps?..


Ive stated before Im pretty centrist, but it's these conversations where I come off as a leftie I guess. Cause it's apparent that guys like you are desperate to cover your eyes and ears so that you don't have to feel any guilt over the insanity you spew.

You mentioned in another post accepting longer wait times so that everyone can have access to healthcare is a "compassion" argument.
No dude, it's a human argument
- HB77

I don't feel that you come off as a leftie with these comments. True "lefties" want to keep people poor and dependent.

Oh no, don't go there. He'll have some diatribe full of misinformation to spew. Bottom line is the US protects Canada. A ten year old knows that.
- quackup

From what ?

Yes you have a military that is much bigger than ours.
And if any foreign force invaded us that could threaten your way of like you'd certainly help. As long as their was a long term positive monetary gain in it

But this whole 'murica fuk yeah' argument makes me chuckle.
There's nothing to protect us from. Our Foreign policy overall is much more sane and we aren't in any immediate risk. And haven't been for a long long time

Nice switch. The topic was healthcare/health insurance. Not poverty. You don't care about medicade, but was was pointed out, that's health insurance for the impoverished.

And one may be born into poverty, but it's the persons choice to remain in poverty. Huge difference. And if you believe otherwise, you've been truly brainwashed.
- quackup

What if you're actually wrong? Being in poverty at several times in my life, and studying / teaching about it in school, I know a thing or two about it.

I realize how easy it is to say people who don't share your opinion are brainwashed, but are you honestly telling me that the thousands of people and millions of dollars that have been spent to study poverty are all lying and that you, a guy posting on hockeybuzz, know better than they do?

Depending on where you get your information and how you define poverty, anywhere from 12 to 20% of North America is in poverty. It's estimated that one in five people don't have enough money for groceries for the week.

The vast majority - upper 90% - of these people are not lazy and cannot work themselves out of poverty.

Studies have shown that people who work for min. wage work that work the hardest in our society, for the least. The working poor is probably the single biggest demographic.

The odds, percentage wise, of a person born in poverty overcoming it are insanely long. If we could reach people like you and make them understand that character, laziness and work ethic has almost nothing to with poverty, then we'd make a start on fixing the problem.

How is it false? Poverty hasnt been proven to beget poverty?
Mental illness hasn't been proven to do the same?
Racial minorities haven't been proven to have less opportunity ?

Are you under the impression it's just laziness and they need to just pull themselves up by their bootstraps?..


Ive stated before Im pretty centrist, but it's these conversations where I come off as a leftie I guess. Cause it's apparent that guys like you are desperate to cover your eyes and ears so that you don't have to feel any guilt over the insanity you spew.

You mentioned in another post accepting longer wait times so that everyone can have access to healthcare is a "compassion" argument.
No dude, it's a human argument
- HB77

* 38 percent of the persons whom the Census Bureau identifies as "poor" own their own homes with a median value of $39,200.

* 62 percent of "poor" households own a car; 14 percent own two or more cars.

* Nearly half of all "poor" households have air-conditioning; 31 percent have microwave ovens.

* Nationwide, some 22,000 "poor" households have heated swimming pools or Jacuzzis.

"Poor" Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more property than did the average U.S. citizen throughout much of the 20th Century. In 1988, the per capita expenditures of the lowest income fifth of the U.S. population exceeded the per capita expenditures of the median American household in 1955, after adjusting for inflation.1

Better Off Than Europeans, Japanese
The average "poor" American lives in a larger house or apartment than does the average West European (This is the average West European, not poor West Europeans). Poor Americans eat far more meat, are more likely to own cars and dishwashers, and are more likely to have basic modern amenities such as indoor toilets than is the general West European population.

"Poor" Americans consume three times as much meat each year and are 40 percent more likely to own a car than the average Japanese. And the average Japanese is 22 times more likely to live without an indoor flush toilet than is a poor American.

The Census Bureau counts as "poor" anyone with "cash income" less than the official poverty threshold, which was $12,675 for a family of four in 1989. The Census completely disregards assets owned by the "poor," and does not even count much of what, in fact, is income. This is clear from the Census's own data: low income persons spend $1.94 for every $1.00 in "income" reported by the Census. If this is true, then the poor somehow are getting $0.94 in additional income above every $1.00 counted by the Census. Indeed, the gap between spending and the Census's count of the income of the "poor" has grown larger year by year till, now, the Census measurement of the income of poor persons no longer has any bearing on economic reality.

Ignoring Billions of Dollars
A key reason that the Census undercounts the financial resources of the "poor" is that, remarkably, it ignores nearly all welfare spending when calculating the "incomes" of persons in poverty. Thus, as far as the Bureau is concerned, billions of dollars in in-kind benefits to poor Americans have no effect on their incomes. Out of $184 billion in welfare spending, the Census counts only $27 billion as income for poor persons. The bulk of the welfare system, including entire programs that provide non-cash aid to the poor, like food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid, is completely ignored in the Census Bureau's calculations of the living standards of the "poor." The missing welfare spending that is excluded from the Census Bureau poverty reports comes to $158 billion, or over $11,120 for every "poor" U.S. household.
http://www.heritage.org/p...ow-poor-are-americas-poor

I don't feel that you come off as a leftie with these comments. True "lefties" want to keep people poor and dependent.
- MJL

That's not true.

you're confusing your fear of the word socialism and all the evils it apparently entails with people who believe that the well being of its citizens are the prime directives of a government

Now, how the gov achieves that and the bloat that occurs from beauracracy is something I can often agree with sane righties

* 38 percent of the persons whom the Census Bureau identifies as "poor" own their own homes with a median value of $39,200.

* 62 percent of "poor" households own a car; 14 percent own two or more cars.

* Nearly half of all "poor" households have air-conditioning; 31 percent have microwave ovens.

* Nationwide, some 22,000 "poor" households have heated swimming pools or Jacuzzis.

"Poor" Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more property than did the average U.S. citizen throughout much of the 20th Century. In 1988, the per capita expenditures of the lowest income fifth of the U.S. population exceeded the per capita expenditures of the median American household in 1955, after adjusting for inflation.1

Better Off Than Europeans, Japanese
The average "poor" American lives in a larger house or apartment than does the average West European (This is the average West European, not poor West Europeans). Poor Americans eat far more meat, are more likely to own cars and dishwashers, and are more likely to have basic modern amenities such as indoor toilets than is the general West European population.

"Poor" Americans consume three times as much meat each year and are 40 percent more likely to own a car than the average Japanese. And the average Japanese is 22 times more likely to live without an indoor flush toilet than is a poor American.

The Census Bureau counts as "poor" anyone with "cash income" less than the official poverty threshold, which was $12,675 for a family of four in 1989. The Census completely disregards assets owned by the "poor," and does not even count much of what, in fact, is income. This is clear from the Census's own data: low income persons spend $1.94 for every $1.00 in "income" reported by the Census. If this is true, then the poor somehow are getting $0.94 in additional income above every $1.00 counted by the Census. Indeed, the gap between spending and the Census's count of the income of the "poor" has grown larger year by year till, now, the Census measurement of the income of poor persons no longer has any bearing on economic reality.

Ignoring Billions of Dollars
A key reason that the Census undercounts the financial resources of the "poor" is that, remarkably, it ignores nearly all welfare spending when calculating the "incomes" of persons in poverty. Thus, as far as the Bureau is concerned, billions of dollars in in-kind benefits to poor Americans have no effect on their incomes. Out of $184 billion in welfare spending, the Census counts only $27 billion as income for poor persons. The bulk of the welfare system, including entire programs that provide non-cash aid to the poor, like food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid, is completely ignored in the Census Bureau's calculations of the living standards of the "poor." The missing welfare spending that is excluded from the Census Bureau poverty reports comes to $158 billion, or over $11,120 for every "poor" U.S. household.
http://www.heritage.org/p...ow-poor-are-americas-poor
- arh777

So now we know how building seven came down, I guess.

So now we know how building seven came down, I guess.
- james_tanner1

I was gonna post a long winded retort with "framing for ones purposes" as my general thesis, but this was much better

That's not true.

you're confusing your fear of the word socialism and all the evils it apparently entails with people who believe that the well being of its citizens are the prime directives of a government

Now, how the gov achieves that and the bloat that occurs from beauracracy is something I can often agree with sane righties
- HB77

It is absolutely true. Spare me what I'm confused about. Nothing to do with socialism. It has everything to do with the left and the Democratic party wanting to keep people dependent on government so they can keep their votes. Same reason why they're in favor of open borders and not fixing immigration.

Well you brought it up so I will comment If Hillary became president this country would lose all jobs and then turn into a third world country. You cannot have that many giveaways and have everyone on food stamps It just does NOT work. We have states that have more people not working than actually working. Under Hillary that would have increase. Open borders, you have got to be kidding me. I just do not understand how liberals think that Hillary and Obuma were the answer. Cause they were NOT. Thank God you have someone running the country that wants to run it like a business. Not just throw money down the toilet. Liberals are clueless
- holeinone

How is it false? Poverty hasnt been proven to beget poverty?
Mental illness hasn't been proven to do the same?
Racial minorities haven't been proven to have less opportunity ?

Are you under the impression it's just laziness and they need to just pull themselves up by their bootstraps?..


Ive stated before Im pretty centrist, but it's these conversations where I come off as a leftie I guess. Cause it's apparent that guys like you are desperate to cover your eyes and ears so that you don't have to feel any guilt over the insanity you spew.

You mentioned in another post accepting longer wait times so that everyone can have access to healthcare is a "compassion" argument.
No dude, it's a human argument
- HB77

Probably, because stupid begets stupid

So now we know how building seven came down, I guess.
- james_tanner1

Facts give you a hard time. I get it!

Facts give you a hard time. I get it!
- arh777

When Tanner said he was a teacher it explained everything.

When Tanner said he was a teacher it explained everything.
- quackup

College, even.

Facts give you a hard time. I get it!
- arh777

I have to say, I've thought it over and you are right. If anyone has a mircrowave they have no business calling themselves poor.

College, even.
- james_tanner1

And that scares me more!

I have to say, I've thought it over and you are right. If anyone has a mircrowave they have no business calling themselves poor.
- james_tanner1

You finally get it

The fact that Japan also has poor people totally negates the over 42 million people in the states living with food insecurity on a daily basis

When Tanner said he was a teacher it explained everything.
- quackup

Teaching minds full of mush! Scary!

* 38 percent of the persons whom the Census Bureau identifies as "poor" own their own homes with a median value of $39,200.

* 62 percent of "poor" households own a car; 14 percent own two or more cars.

* Nearly half of all "poor" households have air-conditioning; 31 percent have microwave ovens.

* Nationwide, some 22,000 "poor" households have heated swimming pools or Jacuzzis.

"Poor" Americans today are better housed, better fed, and own more property than did the average U.S. citizen throughout much of the 20th Century. In 1988, the per capita expenditures of the lowest income fifth of the U.S. population exceeded the per capita expenditures of the median American household in 1955, after adjusting for inflation.1

Better Off Than Europeans, Japanese
The average "poor" American lives in a larger house or apartment than does the average West European (This is the average West European, not poor West Europeans). Poor Americans eat far more meat, are more likely to own cars and dishwashers, and are more likely to have basic modern amenities such as indoor toilets than is the general West European population.

"Poor" Americans consume three times as much meat each year and are 40 percent more likely to own a car than the average Japanese. And the average Japanese is 22 times more likely to live without an indoor flush toilet than is a poor American.

The Census Bureau counts as "poor" anyone with "cash income" less than the official poverty threshold, which was $12,675 for a family of four in 1989. The Census completely disregards assets owned by the "poor," and does not even count much of what, in fact, is income. This is clear from the Census's own data: low income persons spend $1.94 for every $1.00 in "income" reported by the Census. If this is true, then the poor somehow are getting $0.94 in additional income above every $1.00 counted by the Census. Indeed, the gap between spending and the Census's count of the income of the "poor" has grown larger year by year till, now, the Census measurement of the income of poor persons no longer has any bearing on economic reality.

Ignoring Billions of Dollars
A key reason that the Census undercounts the financial resources of the "poor" is that, remarkably, it ignores nearly all welfare spending when calculating the "incomes" of persons in poverty. Thus, as far as the Bureau is concerned, billions of dollars in in-kind benefits to poor Americans have no effect on their incomes. Out of $184 billion in welfare spending, the Census counts only $27 billion as income for poor persons. The bulk of the welfare system, including entire programs that provide non-cash aid to the poor, like food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid, is completely ignored in the Census Bureau's calculations of the living standards of the "poor." The missing welfare spending that is excluded from the Census Bureau poverty reports comes to $158 billion, or over $11,120 for every "poor" U.S. household.
http://www.heritage.org/p...ow-poor-are-americas-poor
- arh777

What makes this so particularly funny is that you are quoting from a report from the Heritage Foundation (not the funny part - wait for it) from 1990.

So not only is this report 27 years old, but it comes after 10 years of having a Republican in the White House.

Honest question: are you being intentionally racist, or do you really not know how that sounds? I don't mind if you harass me for being a dumb hockey writer, but have some self respect.

Are people who are mixed race treated only half as racist-ly? Is that how you spell Muslim? You need to be better than this.
- james_tanner1

Is he not 50/50 yes or no?

He has divided this country big time though I am sure u disagree

What makes this so particularly funny is that you are quoting from a report from the Heritage Foundation (not the funny part - wait for it) from 1990.

So not only is this report 27 years old, but it comes after 10 years of having a Republican in the White House.
- Atomic Wedgie

How about 2007? Or 2012?
http://www.heritage.org/p...he-plague-poverty-america

http://www.heritage.org/p...cts-about-poverty-america

How about 2007? Or 2012?
http://www.heritage.org/p...he-plague-poverty-america

http://www.heritage.org/p...cts-about-poverty-america
- arh777

No mea culpa for quoting from a poverty "study" that was done prior to the Clinton welfare reforms?

And you'll forgive me if I completely ignore any "studies" produced by the Heritage Foundation.

There is certainly a healthy discussion to be had about welfare reforms in America.

"Studies" from the Heritage Foundation do not contribute anything of substance to the discussion.

To put it in terms that will hopefully help you understand, I don't quote from Garth when talking about projections for the Atlantic Division for 2017-18.

Or put yet another way: you can't laugh at Tanner for only presenting one distorted side of an argument, if all you are going to do is present the opposite yet equally distorted view.

You finally get it

The fact that Japan also has poor people totally negates the over 42 million people in the states living with food insecurity on a daily basis
- HB77

Sigh

Is he not 50/50 yes or no?

He has divided this country big time though I am sure u disagree
- rinaldo

I think Obama was a divisive President, but mostly because Fox and Trump went on a relentless eight year campaign of fear-mongering and mis-information. Politically his policies most closely reflect Ronald Regean, so there is an irony to the Repulican hatred of Obama.

Here is a quick history lesson for you about racism:

When slavery was legal, there was a racist term called octoroon, which meant that a person was considered black if they had a single black person in their family tree going back to their great grandparents, which is like 15 or 16 people, hence the term.

Not only were you a slave if you were even 1/16 black, but the whiter your skin, the more money the slave could be sold for.

Now consider that being mixed race doesn't mean you get treated with any less racism than a full raced person, and maybe you can see why derogatorily pointing out that Obama is only half black is pretty damn racist.

No mea culpa for quoting from a poverty "study" that was done prior to the Clinton welfare reforms?

And you'll forgive me if I completely ignore any "studies" produced by the Heritage Foundation.

There is certainly a healthy discussion to be had about welfare reforms in America.

"Studies" from the Heritage Foundation do not contribute anything of substance to the discussion.

To put it in terms that will hopefully help you understand, I don't quote from Garth when talking about projections for the Atlantic Division for 2017-18.

Or put yet another way: you can't laugh at Tanner for only presenting one distorted side of an argument, if all you are going to do is present the opposite yet equally distorted view.
- Atomic Wedgie

No disrespect but I'm believe you're taking about the welfare reforms initiated by Newt Gingrich in his Contract with America. That was 1994. I just gave you 2012 and the Hertage Foundation is just fine. You guys make the same arguments every time. You don't like what's being said so you attack the source as illigitimate. Can't make this stuff up !