It's the "1/3rd" of there income was just given to them part... or at least I'd think so.

He's argueing that when you give people money rather then make them earn it.  They're less likely to become good with money and therefore more likely to stay poor rather then now where the US is fairly dynamic when it comes to upword (and downward) mobility.

Those poor are now dependent on the government and the rich.

Right now the US is actually quite good when it comes to upword mobility.

Around 50% of the people in the lowest quintile will have moved into a higher quintile in 10 years.  While in 10 years, only 25% of the top 1% will still be in the top 1%.

People who advocate taxing the rich never consider how the rich have the most control over what they earn, can increase their income much easier than the poor, and pass on the increases to everyone else; and the poor have more money but it is worse less due to inflation. Beyond that, most taxes are on high income earners and not the rich so they tend to be the most punitive on independent business men (owners of small businesses and contractors) while completely ignoring the wealthy.

I'm not you. I am telling my experience, which I know better than you. Ask any poor people which time period the'd rather live in, the Clinton or the Bush, I don't care for Clinton, but it was better. I know it's just a small sample  of 300 million, but it's my sample. No research is needed.

Funny thing, I predict 10 years from now, we will have a different thinking of this Health care bill based on how historians put it, i expect a much posive view on it. That's life.

I don't see how they have become more or less dependent on the government/rich. Their lives haven't changed in anyway. They are still doing the 10K a year job and there is nothing stopping them trying to earn more. All thats changed is that they have been given 5k for free.

what pisses me off is the fine issue... you get fined if you choose not to have health care.... eff the poor... if you're poor then do something about it

You act as if I dont't know poor people... ignoring you know... the fact where i mentioned I actually qualify for basicallly free haelthcare under this bill.

Also your compairing Bush and Clinton as if Bush caused the GIANT RECESSION that happened.

Additionally personal experience is what we'd call an anctedote.  Not really the best thing to argue with vs data.

It's once again like saying PS3 is selling better then the Wii, because despite NPD saying otherwise... you have more fun with it and think the Wii is stupid.

Its 2:30am here, so I'm going to sleep so don't expect a reply for a while.

Kasz has a point, but that's not where I was going.

The "poor" mark was 10,000. Now the poor mark is 15,000. this means those 8 are just as poor as they were before, because the market will adjust. But the rich still have more then 4X the poor, but have less then they had before, so the cost of there lifestyle goes down. For example, if before you were going to charge them 300 a night for a hotel, you will have to charge them 250 a night for a hotel, because there is no one left who can pay 300.

So the lifestyle of each didn't really change much. But, you have the guy making 10,000 a year, who realizes he would have to make 50% more then he makes now, just to start improving his situation. That's going to take years. Most people will not put forth the kind of effort needed to get ahead, if the soonest they will see a return on there investment is 10 or so years down the road.

So, in 10 years, the guys taking home 80K will still be making 100K, and the ones taking home 15K will still be making 10K.

The rich keep being rich, and the poor keep being poor. The only thing that would really hurt the rich's lifestyle, is if one of those poor became rich. Paying them to stay poor, keeps that from happening. 

How did Clinton caused this Giant recession? the tax increase? the balance budget? the surplus?

I have heard this idea a lot, but mostly from one side, but wasnt congress Republican controlled?

End-of Presidency Job Approval Ratings
Bill Clinton (2001)	65%
Ronald Reagan (1989)	64
Dwight Eisenhower (1961)	59
John F. Kennedy (1963)	63
George Bush (1993)	56
Gerald Ford (1977)	53
Lyndon Johnson (1969)	49
Jimmy Carter (1981)	34
Richard Nixon (1974)	24

On some specifics Clinton's final ratings soar higher still. Sixty-seven percent say he's been a strong leader. Sixty-eight percent approve of his work on foreign affairs; on race relations, 73 percent approve; and on the economy — the mainstay of his overall approval —

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/dailynews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html

This recession was caused by home priced being much higher then there real value. Clinton knew that the best way to increase wealth, was home ownership. So, he stared a subprime lending system, where he told banks to give loans to those who were bad risks, and told them the loans would be guaranteed.

What this did is increase the number of people who could own a home, but the number of homes did not go up, so prices went up. Builders started building. prices were going up so fast, that these loans could be given to people for next to nothing, and then in a few years, they could refinance and just keep going. For this to keep working though, you needed the number of people who can buy a house to always be more then the number of houses there are to buy.

Builders kept building, and the requirements to get a loan kept going down. The problem was once they got to 75% homeowners, the other 25% were so bad, there was no reason to even try and give them a loan. We ran out of people who could enter the market.

Builders kept building. Now we have the number of houses we need for the number of people who can buy them, so prices stop going up. This means all the people who were banking on there house increasing so they could refinance, were in trouble. They started defaulting on there loans. This shut down the program, so the number of people who could own a house went back down to the 60% it has always been.

This means we have enough homes for 75% ownership, but only 60% buyers. Now homes shoot way down in value, far less then they would have been if the program was never started. Even the poor people who kept paying on a home, own a home that is worth thousands less then they paid for it.

This is the example of good intentions (because Clinton had the poor's best interests in mine) going very wrong.

It's why the best way to help the poor, is to give them every tool they need to become not poor on there own, and let them work to not be poor. Trying to game the system never helps anyone.