StrangeSox

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 05:20 PM) Or admitting the failure of our social spending? Cutting social spending is a sure-fire way to eliminate class privilege. Also tax breaks for ADM instead of food stamps.

Another criticism of Rector saying the exact same garbage 12 years ago.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 05:09 PM) It's called night school. I worked a full time job (paying s***) and got myself through law school by going to class at night. Oh, but i'm white and had a father in my life so I hit the life lottery and my situation doesn't compare! GMAFB. Were you entirely responsible for all of your own living expenses and possibly those of your family as well? Did you have children or younger siblings to raise at the same time? Did you grow up with access to better schools and a better understanding of how to get into college, even if you need government assistance in the form of student loans? Are you really denying the existence of class privileges?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 05:07 PM) I've been in Cabrini Green a few times and have seen this stuff. I know people that are landlords in poor areas of the city and in Gary, Indiana. Is that something to compare too nationally? Probably not, but it's enough that I don't buy into the bulls*** you guys do that unless you make 50k, have access to cable, internet, a smartphone and can afford college paying cash that you're "poor" and need government to help you through life. The Census poverty level for a family of four is $22k. That's what Heritage is claiming is not really poor because they own cheap consumer electronics.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 04:52 PM) I'd love to see your thorough research on this matter. How many homes have you personally inspected? Anecdotes and personal incredulity are all you need!

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 04:49 PM) How does anyone in this country have "zero chance" of going to college of have a "successful" life? GMAB. That's life choices that get in the way. Maybe for an incredibly small % of people it's impossible (doubt it) but not for the vast majority of the "poor." Born into poverty, have to go to work as early as possible to support your family and never have time for school. But that's not a realistic scenario!

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 04:46 PM) In the grand scheme of things they are. If you have zero chance of going to college and having a successful life then what's the harm in a $200 video game console to make your difficult life a tiny bit more bearable? Jenks believes people are poor because they deserve to be poor--if they would only work harder or make the right decisions ie not use drugs or have kids at a young age, then American Meritocracy would lift them all from poverty. Nevermind that the single parent working three jobs at minimum wage just to get by invariably busts their ass more than any of us do, as evidenced by our frequent daytime SoxTalk posting. She's just making dumb decisions like owning TV's and refrigerators and ceiling fans and basking in the luxury of having both an oven and a stove! eta: lol, perfect timing.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 04:43 PM) Ah yes, back to the what's "cheap" argument. I forgot that TV's, video game consoles, cell phones - thousands of dollars - are cheap and necessary to function in society. The Heritage Foundation hopes that people will assume "TV" means "brand-new LED 50" 3D", but there's no reason it can't mean "$30 TV picked up at a garage sale" But continue to ignore the valid and detailed criticisms of Heritage's garbage arguments for sustaining or increasing class privilege.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 04:35 PM) I think that if someone has luxury goods like cell phones and xboxs and multiple tv's they're not making the right decisions to get themselves out of being poor. TV's and Xboxs and cell phones are really cheap. College isn't. "Possession of cheap appliances" doesn't actually address any of the real problems of poverty and the barriers to getting out of it.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 04:23 PM) It is lack of fresh foods available because the neighborhoods suck and their desire for quick food that isnt good for them. They can plan to buy a bag of chips but not an apple? They can plan to but oil to fry things but not rice or something else more healthy? Well, you hit on lack of access right away but don't seem to think it's a legitimate reason for the problem. Access to affordable-yet-healthy foods is the biggest problem. But that piece I linked goes over your objections pretty thoroughly, including lacking time to actually prepare meals when you're a single mom working two jobs and raising a couple of kids. Anyway this was just a throw-in when I was googling around about the Heritage report. This same guy seems to produce the same bad papers (poor people aren't really poor because they own some cheap appliances and eat food that makes them obese) year after year.

He says they eat just fine and increasing food subsidies won't matter because they obviously can afford a nutritious diet now. This isn't true; they lack the ability to actually plan food purchases in advance and buy more nutritious food because they are living hand-to-mouth. That's not semantics, that's Heritage making more patently dumb claims.

Democrats can be neoliberals.

I don't get it. What's "bi-partisan" about that proposal? We've got a Democrat in the White House and a Democrat Senate, and we're going to get a hard-right austerity plan so that the GOP will allow the country to pay its bills.

Washington Post summary of the "Gang of Six" debt proposal Off the bat I notice it calls for repeal of the CLASS act, which of course the CBO scored as budget-reducing. Oh, and lowering marginal tax rates, abolishing the AMT and fixing in the "doc fix" for at least 10 more years. Glad we're concerned about deficits and not just ideological positions, right? They're proposing to cut taxes by $1.5 trillion. That'll really close some budget gaps!

Another takedown of this same doofus trying to argue that poor people don't suffer from food or nutrition deficiencies because they're obese.

I like that poor is in scare quotes for a family of four making less than $22k a year.

I'd like to see the definition for "adequate food and medical care." You'll also notice that less than a 1/3 of poor households have internet access, which is ever-more vital in today's world. But a slight majority have ceiling fans! eta: they've been publishing essentially the same claims since at least 1999. And the same "ZOMG! poor people have window AC units!" claims in 2007, which appear to be incorrect. This article on the report notes that this focuses solely on material possessions and neglects many other issues of poverty. A Daily Kos article! and a fdl article mocking the Heritage foundation's definition of poor (it's DK and fdl, take it fwiw).

QUOTE (The Baconator @ Jul 19, 2011 -> 08:49 AM) The Vice Guide did a great documentary on the two guys getting a 'tour' of North Korea. Vice Guide to North Korea Probably the best 'behind the scenes' view of North Korea I've seen. They are effectively in what the Jurassic Park theme park (in the movie) was supposed to be- they're "in the wild" but really just being shown things that the North Koreans want them to see. The bit towards the end about them driving down the highway and stopping at the rest stop was crazy. Definitely worth watching. Nat Geo made a good documentary where they snuck in a film crew with a doctor going there to perform thousands of cataract surgeries.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jul 18, 2011 -> 04:47 PM) What's funny is, as silly as some people are for thinking what you are making fun of... the fact that you think a few days' worth of weather PROVES anything is equally silly. I took it more as mocking the "ZOMG! There's still SNOW! Global Warming is a HOAXX!!!" crowd.

lol

tbh that's more reasonable than whatever real reason they're refusing to make a deal.

lol just came here to post this

NANCY GRACE WOULD NOT LIE TO ME!

also lighten up, it's just a post on a forum.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jul 15, 2011 -> 02:09 PM) Obviously the jury at some point agreed as well as it was 6-6. Stop saying this, it's just dumb. Obviously HALF of the jurors agreed at one point early on, but after deliberation and discussion changed their mind.