This is an example of why I have extreme problems with your writing style. I've never said that.

I'm not saying we should remove all of these social programs. But certainly some of them don't survive a cost benefit analysis. Are you saying that every one of these programs is still viable, was built the correct way, and should last forever and ever, because that's what happens, more or less

that the middle class has shrunk both in size

I don't think that's true. The middle class has grown in the US

What % of American families have smart phones?

But the list should still give you a sense of how far behind America's poor are compared with their counterparts in other affluent countries. At the 10th percentile, for instance, Norwegians have almost 60 percent more income than Americans. (Their data may only be good through 2004, but the country is currently enjoying a 3.8 percent unemployment rate. Chances are, living standards haven't fallen off much.). Canadians have about 30 percent more income

The problem generally is that when you stop helping those who receive from these programs, they don't magically stop being poor....

I agree with you that many programs become entrenched and should be subject to review and revisions. Or even eliminations.

rayjay:

I don't think that's true. The middle class has grown in the US

You have actual evidence that supports your belief? Because there's reams out there that say otherwise... here...
http://mic.com/articles/113322/since-20 ... -the-union

rayjay

What % of American families have smart phones?

56%. Which is far less than many countries.

That seems to be the main answer that Republicans give: (1) things can't be too bad if people are not starving and have technological gadgets and (2) their poverty is due to some kind of character problem...

freeman3 wrote:Yes , Hillary was sharp.

Yes, but smart phones are a luxury item. We all survived without them for thousands of years. If 56% of people have them, and presuming that those under a certain age and over a certain age do not, that implies that there is widespread disposable income out there. Clearly it's not just the 1% or the 10% or even the 50% who are enjoying the fruits of capitalism

freeman3 wrote:My questions is RJ why are other countries better at eliminating poverty than we do, if government anti-poverty programs are as ineffective as you suggest?

Anyway, while I do think there should be an adequate safety net, there is a certain amount of abasement required in our culture for men (and women too but not as bad) to take advantage of welfare programs. I am much more concerned that workers regain the power to get a fairer share of the wealth they produce--that's the best anti-poverty measure and workers would have the dignity derived from having earned their money rather being given something with a nice side of contempt to go along with it.

bbauska wrote:Does the phone need to be a "smartphone"? Doesn't a flip phone work just as well.

Explain why the government needs to provide a smartphone, and not just a basic flip phone.

geojanes wrote:

freeman3 wrote:Yes , Hillary was sharp.

Agreed, she did very well. Bernie did OK, but Hillary put in the best performance.

The em­battled front-run­ner won her­self a news cycle or two, be­cause she stretched the truth and played to a friendly audi­ence. It won’t al­ways be so.

It took more than an hour be­fore CNN’s An­der­son Cooper asked Clin­ton about the cov­ert email sys­tem she es­tab­lished as sec­ret­ary of State in de­fi­ance of fed­er­al reg­u­la­tions, sub­vert­ing the Free­dom of In­form­a­tion Act, thwart­ing con­gres­sion­al over­sight, and jeop­ard­iz­ing U.S. secrets. And, even then, her chief rival offered Clin­ton cov­er. …

Pro­fes­sion­al Demo­crats and the party’s strongest voters are cer­tainly tired of hear­ing about the email scan­dal, but it’s not go­ing to go away—not with the FBI in­vest­ig­at­ing wheth­er con­fid­en­tial in­form­a­tion was mis­handled un­der Clin­ton’s sys­tem, and not with in­de­pend­ent voters los­ing faith in Clin­ton’s word.

Char­ac­ter and judg­ment are gate­way polit­ic­al is­sues. An un­trust­worthy can­did­ate might check all your policy boxes, might tickle your ideo­lo­gic­al but­tons, and might even grind away long enough to get your vote—but you’re not go­ing to like it.

. . .

The email scan­dal re­calls ques­tions about Clin­ton’s in­teg­rity that go back to the Rose Law Firm/White­wa­ter and the White House Travel Of­fice. Flip-flop­ping on the Trans-Pa­cific Part­ner­ship and the Key­stone XL pipeline add weight to the ar­gu­ment made by Demo­crats and Re­pub­lic­ans alike that Clin­ton is a mal­le­able op­por­tun­ist.
There are many people, in­clud­ing me, who know a side of Clin­ton that is strong (2012: “What I Learned Cov­er­ing Hil­lary Clin­ton”) and com­pel­ling (2013: “Best Bet for a Third Clin­ton Term Is if She Runs as the ‘Real Hil­lary’—Warm, Open, and Hon­est”), which makes her ac­tions this year shame­fully in­ept (“Memo to Hil­lary: You’re Still The Prob­lem”).

On the day of the de­bate, two stor­ies un­der­scored Clin­ton’s vul­ner­ab­il­ity.

“A ‘Can­cer’ on the Clin­ton Can­did­acy” by Politico’s Glenn Thrush and An­nie Karni climbs in­side the Clin­ton cam­paign to de­scribe a para­noid can­did­ate with me­diocre polit­ic­al skills re­fus­ing ad­vice of staff to come clean on the email is­sue. “We need to throw the facts to the dogs, and let ‘em chew on it,” seni­or ad­visor John Podesta re­portedly told the can­did­ate. In the deeply re­por­ted story based on in­ter­views with 50 ad­visers, donors, Demo­crat­ic op­er­at­ives, and friends, Clin­ton’s team ap­pears to throw her un­der the bus.

geojanes wrote:

bbauska wrote:Does the phone need to be a "smartphone"? Doesn't a flip phone work just as well.

Explain why the government needs to provide a smartphone, and not just a basic flip phone.

I don't think it does provide a smart phone. A buddy of mine has a huge family and was unemployed and on all sorts of assistance, and this summer he showed me his gov't supplied phone: it was a complete piece of crap, just as you'd expect a gov't provided phone would be. I think you're repeating an urban myth.

Ray Jay wrote:Ricky:

The problem generally is that when you stop helping those who receive from these programs, they don't magically stop being poor....

Apparently you have poverty whether or not these programs exist. Perhaps some programs make the problems worse (e.g. student loans).