January 29, 2006
Josh Feit at the The Stranger summarizes his conversation with Cuba Dwight Pelz upon Pelz's election as Washington state Democrat party chairman:
[Pelz] went on to bash President Bush’s record of misleading the public about Iraq, the Republicans’ “Culture of Corruption,” and the Republicans’ history of bilking the working classes.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 29, 2006
12:04 PM | Email This
Excuse me, when Mr. Petz talks about "Culture of Corruption" is he talking about Patty (Osma-Mamma) Murray's famous statement that taking returning the money she got from the DC Lobbist under corruption investigation would "tant" the good name of the Indian tribes the lobbist directed to give to her?
No he is probably talking about things much closer to home his own corruption and that several past State Democratic Party fines from the Public Disclosure Commission.
I think that the Dem's have a lock on the "Culture of Corruption." Then again Bagdad Jim Mc-DimWhit has been pretty outrageous.
2. “So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot.”
Myles Kantor wrote the following about Dwight Pelz on April 23, 2002. Read it and open your eyes wide:
"Pelz is a member of the King County Council in Seattle. In 1999, he and other council members invited Fidel Castro to the World Trade Organization conference in Seattle. The invitation read: "Should you decide to lead the Cuban delegation to this historic event, we would be honored to have you visit with us. We think your visit here will be a very educational and enriching experience, both for you and the people who reside in communities throughout our region of the country."
Last April, Pelz submitted a resolution to establish a "sister-county relationship" with Cuba’s Granma province. Cuba is one of only seven countries classified by the U.S. State Department as a sponsor of terrorism.
This February, Pelz led a delegation to Cuba "on a fact-finding mission to explore building this relationship." He recounts the trip in "County could build ties with Cuban people" (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, April 11, 2002).
Pelz refers to Cuba’s "first rate education and health care system" and describes it as "a nation with little crime." "I encountered safe streets with a steady police presence," he writes. Indeed, police states tend to have a steady police presence.
Regarding education, Castro said as early as 1965 that "our children are being educated to live in a Communist society" and "they must be discouraged from every egotistical feeling in the enjoyment of material things, such as the sense of individual property." How this perversion constitutes "first rate education" is unclear. (Private schools are prohibited, so parents have no educational options.)
Health care is also far from first-rate and predicated upon ideological apartheid. Dr. Miguel A. Faria, Jr. notes in Cuba in Revolution: Escape from a Lost Paradise, "It is certainly true that in Cuba everyone (i.e., except those branded as counterrevolutionaries) has, at least on paper, access to physicians and health care, although in practice it is a most rudimentary form of medical care." (Even if health care were superb and non-discriminatory, it would not mitigate the regime’s totalitarianism.)
Lo and behold, the Cubans Pelz met were Fidelistas: "I met people with a rich understanding of their own history, and a shared commitment to the direction their country is taking." He reiterates, "We found support for Castro." (Castro enjoys so much support that he has refused electoral accountability for forty-three years.)
Pelz ends his account with the hope that "the Garfield High Jazz Band could travel to the city of Bayamo, Granma and demonstrate to Cubans the beauty of American jazz."
Absent from Pelz’s Cuba is Castro’s totalitarianism, manifest in prohibitions like "disrespect," "illicit association," and "illegal exit." Pelz criticizes the federal government for "restrictions on my right as an American citizen to freely travel to Cuba" but ignores restrictions on Cubans’ right to freely travel to America or anywhere else.
Absent is the terror Castro inflicts through his secret police, the DSE (Department of State Security), the brownshirt-like Rapid Response Brigades, and thousands of chivatos (informers).
Absent are the persecuted dissidents and Amnesty International prisoners of conscience such as Vladimiro Roca and Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet.
Absent are the horrors at Bayamo’s Las Mangas prison and State Security headquarters.
Somehow these facts eluded Pelz during his "fact-finding mission."
Consider the image of a high school band playing in Santiago during Pinochet. As the dictator’s functionaries applaud the melodious performance, discordant knuckles and boots fall upon others in Santiago. The students do not know this, but those who brought them there should.
If the Garfield High Jazz Band played in Bayamo, would it know of its hosts’ captivity or the dissidents in the dungeons of Las Mangas and State Security? Probably not, but I wouldn’t blame these adolescents for what would seem like a tropical excursion.
Dwight Pelz is no adolescent."
Pelz will become the ultimate Marxist quote-machine.
And which party has mislead the American public on Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terror and continues to mislead Ameicanss every day? Democrats.
Which party has mastered the culture of corruption, not only supporting, but defending the most corrupt administration in history, while demonstrating their hypocrisy every single day while they work to invent a Bush scandal as their only strategy to regain power? Democrats.
And don't even start on bilking the working classes. The Democrats have spent the last half century dumbing down the working classes to make them dependent on government, expand the welfare state and turn more and more misinformed and uninformed Americans into good loyal supporters of the Democrats "womb to the tomb" dependency system.
What do Democrats offer? What ideas will they stand behind and defend? What evidence can they present that their leadership results in anything positive for America or Washington State?
If this is all the the new state Democrat chairman has to say to launch his tenure leading the party, then conservatives and Republicans should have nothing to fear.
You guys pick and choose what corruption to talk about. The sad thing is, you don't even know that you're doing it.
Number close to the Clinton administration who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 44
Number of convictions during his administration: 33
Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
Number of imprisonments: 14
Number of presidential impeachments: 1
Number of independent counsel investigations: 7
Number of congressional witnesses pleading the 5th Amendment: 72
Number of witnesses fleeing the country to avoid testifying: 17
Number of foreign witnesses who have declined interviews by investigative bodies: 19
Number close to the Bush administration who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 0
Number of convictions during his administration: 0
Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 1
Number of imprisonments: 0
Number of presidential impeachments: 0
Number of independent counsel investigations: 1
Number of congressional witnesses pleading the 5th Amendment: 0
Number of witnesses fleeing the country to avoid testifying: 0
Number of foreign witnesses who have declined interviews by investigative bodies: 0
Details with many links at my blog you'd better do some reading before arguing Iraq.
Bilk the working Class?
marginal tax rates last 25 years. Up during Clinton, down during Reagan and Bush 43.
Not only is Pelz a communist, he is a ignorant communist.
And he is the best the dems in KC can do?
And he is the best the dems in WA can do?
What a great site! What a range of views we get here; everything from Comrade Pelz's kook fringe to mature, intelligent, reflective thinkers; from prattling, aging, physically rotted flower children to educated adults.
You go, Dwight! You're our very own Jimmy Carter, our very own Steve Urkel, Washington State's own Useful Idiot #1! Keep the microphone in front of Dwight 24x7. He'll do for the democrat party in WA what Howard Dean and Teddy Kennedy have done for it nationally!
9. I cannot tell you my profound joy that Cuba Pelz has been elected. We now have our state version of Howard Dean. He unwittingly will do more to help return this state back toward the right than anyone on the right has been able to do in the past 25 years. If we can only get Dwight to scream on camera it will be a lock.
10. Here is another take: the Democrats in this state no longer fear the Republicans or the people, or fear being voted out of office. Their hold on our government, our media, our schools, our universities, our transportation system, our culture, and our future is so total and overwhelming that someone like Pelz can be publically lauded without fear of reprocussion...
"Bilking the working class"
Oh, you mean like when the state employee union forces workers to join the union or lose their jobs? And when they did, they took home less than before they joined, because of the dues? You mean like that??
12. Pelz: Cuba's "first-rate education and health care system". And I'll bet the trains run on time, too. Ya know--that free speech thing and freedom to leave one's own country thing without being shot are sooooo overrated!
13. He's the WA Democrat Party answer to Howard Dean - with a communist sympathizer flavor. Enough disgust or gloating about this choice on with the tall order of clean up King County, which is rife with corruption and vote as many of the corrupting swine out of office in November as humanly possible !
14. [Pelz] went on to bash President Bush’s record of misleading the public about Iraq, the Republicans’ “Culture of Corruption,” and the Republicans’ history of bilking the working classes.
Yes... and your point?
Here is Dwight Pelz's vision of utopia, from his guest editorial in the April 11, 2002 Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
Pelz does not have a single negative word for the Communist system in Cuba. Indeed, Pelz praises many aspects of the Communist system.
Pelz does recognize that Cuba is now a poor country, and that Cuba once used to be richer. However, Pelz does not blame these economic problems on the communist system. Instead, Pelz blames the U.S. for not trading with Cuba!
16. Castro has been in power since Kennedy. The major goal of the Democrats is gaining and keeping power. Why should they not view Castro as a role model?
17. "Yes... and your point?"
Oh, probably that anyone who is dim enough to spew that sort of sillyness (like Putz) is a grade A pointy-headed, hamster-brain, and, as such, makes the perfect spokesmoron for the democrap party in Washington.
18. Since Pelz seems to have such fondness for Castro and Cuba maybe he should be given a one way ticket to live there permanently. These U.S. bashing American citizens should be counting their blessings daily rather than having delusional fantasies about what a wondeful country Cuba is. I agree with the previous posters: Pelz as chairman will be the ultimate demise for the Democratic party in Washington State and it can happen soon enough!
"Oh, probably that anyone who is dim enough to spew that sort of sillyness (like Putz) is a grade A pointy-headed, hamster-brain, and, as such, makes the perfect spokesmoron for the democrap party in Washington.
Bush misleading the public about Iraq:
Republicans’ “Culture of Corruption,”:
Republicans’ bilking the working classes:
Your spin about Pelz is as much a waste of time as your effort to sweep under the rug the reality of Bush's boneheaded, unprepared and deliberate march to invade Iraq, based on twisted information, the reality of Delay, Cunningham, Dasen, Ney, West, Sherwood, Williams, Safavian, Libby, Black, Noe, Abramoff, Ebbers, Franklin, Kidan, Taft, Fox, Tobin, Kozlowski, Greene, and Scanlon, and the reality that the poor and middle class are paying for the ongoing party of the rich that have continued to benefit more than anyone from Bush's tax cuts.
20. Daniel--is there a Democrat party line out there that you don't love to regurgitate verbatim to ensure you don't actually have to think anything through? Just curious.
21. Marc - Not only is the answer "no", but like any other good mongrel, he actually likes to lap it back up after he spews it ;'}
Marc asked, "is there a Democrat party line out there that you don't love to regurgitate verbatim to ensure you don't actually have to think anything through?
All three of the points were provided by your host in his quote from The Stranger. I did not provide them, I just provided some pointers to reading that suggest they are not mere "sillyness".
Meanwhile, accusing Pelz, the Washington State Democratic Party Chair, of making "Democratic Party line" statements is surely a sign you guys have run out of talking points. Time to give Karl Rove a call for some new ones.
Try reading something else, like facts.
All mainstream sources, and source documents, read 'em if you dare. Oh! and STFU until you do.
JCM - Congratulations on starting your own blog. But I know of no rule that requires that I read your blog before I can make comments here. Or is that a new right wingnut right of passage here at SP: "read JCM's seldom updated two month old blog or shut the f*ck up"?
If you'd like some facts:
- no WMD were found in Iraq despite Bush and Cheney's claims they would be.
- the Congress never saw the same intelligence that Bush did, despite Bush's claim that they did.
- Saddam Hussein did not have anything to do with 9/11 despite Bush and Cheney's insinuation that he did.
Oh, and BTW, if you're going to keep harping on about Pelz going to Cuba, I think it fair game to suggest that Bush loves an even worse dictator in King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia (http://webpages.charter.net/chodge5/images/2may08.jpg). Parade Magazine ranked the Saudi dictator at number 7 in their recent list (http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2006/edition_01-22-2006/Dictators). Big bad Castro was only 15th, and Musharraf of Pakistan, another Bush friend was 17th.
25. Daniel K, we'd love to just hear you say it: "Castro prohibits free speech, free travel out of the country, private enterprise, etc., jails and kills freedom-loving people who criticize him, but I admire him and his communist system anyway." Isn't that pretty much your sentiment (and pelz's)
So I am discredited because I am an infrequent poster, good start, but that doesn't change the facts.
No WMD? read the linked documents, or are you afraid to?
Congress has intelligence over sight, they can take what the White house gives them, and ask for further briefings. The excuse "well the White House told us..." doesn't wash for an oversight committee.
No one every said Saddam had a piece of 9/11. Again read the documents (oh that's right they months old) on Saddam's terror links. But they again it might damage your fragile ego and cause you to rethink you mindless repeating of moveon talking points. This point is reinforced by the documents be translated we captured in Baghdad of terror training camps, thousands of terrorist trained etc... But since Bush lied the truth no longer matters.
I and few at SP defend, all of the Administration decisions. We are critical when and where warranted.
As to Pelz, he by word and deed and association is a communist. Communism is incompatible with a democracy by, of and for the people.
Daniel, you going to have to be a lot smarter to survive around here.
27. Daniel, HA and Pelz and all the other jack*sses out there - you'd probably like for Gregforhire to do the same as Castro did. Kill all those that opposed him and even those that supported him. That way he was the rule of law and he can live the life he wants. Who cares about the people, they will live as he wants them to live. Sounds like WA dems doesn't it...
28. How mean spirited of you to insinuate such a thing Dengle ?
Sounds like one of the HA posters participating in God forbid - the politics of personal destruction ! The only difference is that this assertion is TRUE upfront unlike many of the attempts fired off by the HA posters and the Demoncats.
30. Hmmm, "counter-revolutionary activities". That's what the link Alphabet Soup supplied says got a model arrested when she took photos of a slum area in Cuba. Counter-revolutionary? What--like Castro doesn't want the world to know that there are slums in his communist haven? I thought leftists tell us there is no poverty in communist havens? Because the state provides free everything. Hmmm, so why would there be slums in cuba?????? Could it be that communism isn't at all what it's cracked up to be by its fans????
Realist said, "I thought leftists tell us there is no poverty in communist havens? Because the state provides free everything. Hmmm, so why would there be slums in cuba?????? Could it be that communism isn't at all what it's cracked up to be by its fans????
Poverty exists in many countries. Nearby Haiti, that bastion on democracy we've had our hand in swells with the stench of poverty. In our own country 35 million people, and over 12 million children live in poverty.
It is the height of desperate cliche to bash Bush anymore. It's so stylish that everybody's doing it, and thus it becomes more like a fad, or wearing the latest style of jeans.
If Pelz really wanted a meaty topic, he should have done this interview:
[Pelz] went on to bash President Castro's record of misleading the public about Cuba, Fidel's’ “Culture of Corruption,” and Fidel's history of bilking the working classes.
But, of course, only the Yankee Imperialists are capable of such things. Viva la Revolucion!
Daniel points out the following:
"Poverty exists in many countries. Nearby Haiti, that bastion on democracy we've had our hand in swells with the stench of poverty. In our own country 35 million people, and over 12 million children live in poverty."
I recognize the irony, but I'm not sure who really considers Haiti a "bastion of democracy." And sure--we have poverty here to.
The thing you seem to be missing out, though, is that for some odd reason certain people revere Castro and hold him up as a shining star of the way things could be if we only followed his enlightened philosophies.
These same people never say this about the Land of the Free.
I wonder how many people die each year trying to escape the poverty and filth of the USA and sail to Fidel's workers paradise?
I call B.S. on you Daniel K.
Go to any third world country and really see what is poverty. Our poorer people are rich compared to a lot of those countries.
Too bad you don't believe in the greatness of the United States of America.
Too bad you Democrats don't believe in the greatness of the United States of America.
35. swatter - No one is denying that poverty in other countries is generally worse than it is here. But it is still poverty nonetheless, and no less an issue to be concerned about. Why should 35 million people be classified as under the poverty level in a nation as great as powerful as ours? That should be just as unacceptable don't you agree?
36. Daniel K, I would rather be a poor person here in the U.S. than in Cuba. ANY DAY. The point was, cuba HAS MORE FAR POVERTY percentage-wise of the population than we do. Those people are NOT living in some kind of haven. Communism is NOT the answer; it's a hellhole of a prison.
37. and YES, JCM, the only president in the last decade to give tax rate cuts to the middle class was GEORGE W BUSH. Clinton campaigned on it and then backed out quicker than you can say "We trahd and trahd but we just couldn't make it work. (You don't SAY??)"
Clinton put one over on the middle class when it came to tax cuts; George W Bush DELIVERED!
And how is the poverty level calculated? You will find it is just a degree. If you want to claim 35 million people are in poverty, go ahead, but I also want you to compare them to the middle class in other third world countries.
I suppose I grew up in poverty. There was a lot of macaroni and cheese, few clothes, no spikes for baseball, no glove, etc..
But if you told my mom and dad they were in poverty, I would recommend you duck. They made ends meet and the kids grew up okay and have jobs.
But, I also know we were rich compared to third world countries.
Nice try with the lies.
"In our own country 35 million people, and over 12 million children live in poverty."
This is simply untrue.
You are too easily taken in by liberal relativist bu!!shit.
40. daniel k has a real blog and the e-mail address is his blog address. Is he also Bruce?
Amused: The data is maintained by the US Census Bureau:
This isn't a Democratic or Republican problem, it is a US problem that won't go away. We're at the same percentage of people under the poverty level as we were in 1968. That's simply not acceptable.
swatter asked, "Is he also Bruce?
Not as far as I know!
swatter - those that can make ends meet with the bare minimum, and do so in good spirit and with a warm heart have my utmost respect.
However, I doubt it is of little comfort to most that wallow under the poverty level in this country to remind them that they are better off than the multitudes of homeless and poor around the world.
Realist - Here's a fact for you: I never voted for Clinton (either time), but I voted for his predecessor. Just some context.
What W has done with his tax cuts has ended up being a wash for the middle class. In order to pay for his tax cuts he has had to cut or eliminate programs that helped the working class to fight the growing deficit.
You can read more about it here: http://www.detnews.com/2004/specialreport/0409/26/a01-284666.htm
Daniel, you sound eductated, anyways. How did you get through school? Parents money or did you have to scrape to get through? I wasn't wallowing; I was living life to the max. Money wasn't everything. Just getting up and existing is exciting.
And you still haven't answered how did you compute the poverty level. I am in the social field and I have my ideas, but I am not dead certain how it is calculated. To be upfront, I think it is an arbitrary line and has nothing to do with how a person lives.
swatter - the poverty level is set by the Department of Health and Human Services and is detailed here: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/povdef.html
You can get more information here: http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/06poverty.shtml
The historic level in dollar terms is ever changing and I think this table shows it pretty well: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/rdp01a.html
You'll see that the level for a family of four is very low. Are you sure you were under the threshold?
The U.S. Census Bureau information means very little on it’s own. The U.S. Census Bureau has set standards of "poverty" based on relative criteria, and limited parameters of information because they have something to gain by providing numbers that will justify their own existence. The Census Bureau is a politically biased bureaucracy that leans to the left by necessity no matter what President’s party is in power. A huge portion of the Annual Federal Budget is spent based on numbers and standards produced by the U.S. Census Bureau. Originally they existed to assure fair voting; now they justify all sorts of spending.
There is a great difference between poverty as defining a person who officially receives $9,645 per year in America, and a person who receives $9,645 per year plus other uncounted income and benefits. ”The official poverty definition uses money income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps.” Barter, the underground economy, and many other items not counted by the census bureau in this assessment make a big difference. More importantly, there is a great difference between $9,645 per year in America and most other areas around the world. Mommies in America are not required to count such things as child care expenses amounting to as much as $7,000 and more per year as income.
While I was in college, I ate well, lived in a warm comfortable place, and spent very little money on anything but the basics because I had very little. By the Census bureau standard, I was classified as impoverished, but I was not in poverty. Poverty is severely lacking food, clothing, and shelter, not simply doing without a DVD player. There are people who choose to live in literal poverty, but the number is nowhere near 35 million. Should anyone in America want for something to eat or a place to sleep or health care, they are already provided for. The number of organizations that provide low cost and no-cost food, shelter, and health care is staggering in America. Saying otherwise is simply lying in the face of reality.
Originally when standards were set by congress the definition of poverty was more realistic. They discussed the fact that global comparisons are inapt. “Poor persons living in the United States in the 1970’s are rich in contrast to their counterparts in other times and places. They are not poor if by poor is meant the subsistence levels of living common in some other countries.” Originally poverty was measured by subsistence levels including (and most importantly) how much food a person consumed. This “Orshansky matrix” means of determining poverty was based on family food expenditures and the Consumer Price Index CPI, while current measures are based solely on declared income. ”the Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty.”
48. Amused: when you were living it up in college you would have (probably) been classified as part of your parent's family if they still listed you on their taxes as a dependent. Therefore, assuming your family's income was above the poverty level, you would not have been classified as under the poverty level.
The numbers of those living in "poverty" really doesn't matter as much as a Democratic party that wants to keep people living like that. It seems to me that they (the Dems) want the poor to be poor, to put their hand out and to say it's someone elses fault (mainly rich white guys).
If the Dem's really cared for people they would preach that people should strive for excellence and to get by on their own. That if they worked hard, no matter where they started that they can make it. They may not become rich and hoity toity like Kennedy or Kerry, but they will do very well and probably be better people for it.
However, that isn't what the Dem's sermon....they preach race/class/sex warfare and that we all should strive for the lowest common denominator cause the government will take care of you.....all the while they eat lobster and drink Chivas.
America is about striving for the best and taking personal responsibility to get there, while being kind enough to give a helping hand to those that need it so they can get back on their feet and succeed on their own.
If you are living below the "poverty line" work to get above it.
You are a typical liberal; you ignore the substance, project your own cowardly pathetic
character to your enemy, and go for a cheap and easy personal attack you know nothing about.
Nice try at bu!!shit deflection, but false.
I wasn't a lazy punk liberal like you prove yourself to be.
Unlike you, I worked, studied, lived on very little, applied myself and graduated with honors, and I didn't
take a nickel of help from my parents to do so.
Indolent liberal punks like you followed me around, plagiarized and even stole my work. It didn't work out too good for them.
They may have passed and gotten degrees, but they are not able to function any better than you.
It's humorous how things work out in the end. Nice job, and thanks for the comment.
Amused, maybe you didn't take a nickel from your parent, but did they count you as a dependent on their taxes? That's all I'm saying? If they did, then you would have been classified as part of their household and whatever your family's income was would have determined where you were with regards to any poverty level.
I've tried to present measured and factual responses in this thread. You've been the one making cheap character attacks against me.
Dengle said, "America is about striving for the best and taking personal responsibility to get there, while being kind enough to give a helping hand to those that need it so they can get back on their feet and succeed on their own."
I pretty much agree with that, and I'm sure most Americans would be grateful for any assistance they can get, want to be able to eventually provide for themselves, and one day return the favor by helping out others in like need.
BTW, you site Kerry and Kennedy as examples of rich politicians. Let's be fair, no one party has an edge on that front (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richest_American_politicians).
52. That should have been "you cite..."
Err, wikipedia has been debunked. Apparently, people can go in and change bios to whatever they want.
I looked at a couple of the references and couldn't find where the number was calculated.
Amused took your argument and used "homeless" instead of the more monied "poverty" and debunked the whole concept, it appeared to me.
Yes, I believe we would have been below that line but houses were $17,000 then and there was no food stamps and other give-aways.
As far as Amused and "starting" adult life over, at times, I, too, dream back to the uncomplicated days of going to school and living on no money. And my parents were so low in income, they paid the minimum and didn't need the deduction.
54. I only state them because they say they are for the little people, but are not. They are also ones that have "had it all" given to them or married into. I don't begrudge them for their circumstances, but I do not believe they care about the American people as they say they do. This may be because they have never had to work for anything, so they "feel" everyone shouldn't have to.
No. During the time I achieved my last two degrees I was well into adult life, I didn't live with my parents but took care of an office building and lived in a utility room. I also tutored, worked construction, and borrowed money from my brother that I paid back after I graduated. I didn't take money for anything from my parents, and they didn't take a deduction for me because I they are not cheats (liberals). At any rate, regardless of deductions there are millions of students today that fall within the definition of poverty who are not living in poverty.
You say, "when you were living it up in college you would have (probably) been classified as part of your parent's family if they still listed you on their taxes as a dependent. Therefore, assuming your family's income was above the poverty level, you would not have been classified as under the poverty level." Thanks; you prove my point.
First, if my family (parents) income was below the REAL poverty level, they would not be able to take a deduction because they would not have enough disposable income left to contribute to my education. Since the poverty level (as you define it) might leave parents enough disposable income to assist their child’s education, they are not truly impoverished.
Second, for the sake of the discussion, assuming that (like most young college students) I was living it up in college, and my parents listed me on their taxes as a dependent, all I would have to do to be classified as impoverished is to lie about my source of income. This sort of thing happens all of the time for many reasons especially in a liberal Democrat culture where high taxes and punitive policies against working people exist. In my case I didn’t take money from my parents, worked to pay for my education, lived below the poverty threshold as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for over 2-1/2 years, and I didn’t live in poverty. I just didn’t have extra money to spend on ammo for my guns.
Finally the U.S. Census Bureau is an organization whose primary order of business is to maintain itself. Redefinition of poverty is a cynical tool of politicians and bureaucrats that allows them to con nitwits into believing in socialism based on shallow reasoning and empty sentimentality. If you know anything about census bureau statistics you will know that a large proportion of their numbers are not verified, but imputed. Do you actually believe that people tell the truth about such issues? Do you actually believe that the IRS and the U.S. Census Bureau talks to each other about who is dependant and who is not based on income tax deductions? If so, it explains why you would be naive enough to believe that 35 million Americans live in poverty.
I believe in helping people in need, and the best solution for low income families is to foster a strong economy based on market forces. GW Bush and his administration are doing exactly that. Useless cynical talk about trumped-up poverty is only a way for clueless people like Dwight Pelz to justify measures that exacerbate low income outcomes for people like those that have existed in Cuba since the 1950's.
Dengle said, "I only state them because they say they are for the little people, but are not. They are also ones that have "had it all" given to them or married into. I don't begrudge them for their circumstances, but I do not believe they care about the American people as they say they do. This may be because they have never had to work for anything, so they "feel" everyone shouldn't have to.
Well neither has Bush. This is a non argument. Our political system almost ensures that only those with money get elected. At least they have to work during the campaign, putting up with the grind and the shit slung at them, to somewhat earn their election.
I do not agree that just because a person has wealth they lack empathy or care less about Americans. That's just too much of a generality.
Amused said, "I didn't take money for anything from my parents, and they didn't take a deduction for me because I they are not cheats (liberals).
You know what Amused, you take the cake. If you can't discuss any of this without your pathetic, childish asides, then I have no wish to further waste my time debating with you.
Golly whiz Daniel K,
When did you start debating?
Does this mean I'm not invited to your Toga party?
Durn, that feller is peeeeved . . .
Come on K . . . just one more comment?
The real reason that you have no wish to further engage . . . is because you had your dumb liberal ass handed to you.
Anyone stupid enough to defend the absurd notion that there are 35 million people truly living in poverty in America is easy to defeat.
Liberals like you are shallow and lazy so . . . no surprise.
Thanks for proving it.