What causes the rich to abuse the poor?

[SamH]

How lucky for the rich, then, that they can afford good, healthy food and access to what they need to keep a sound, calm state of mind and being.

Food for the poor was specifically designed to be high in starch and fats because it was always assumed that because the people were poor they would have less of it and they would be doing more physical work.

I have watched my sister slowly suffer to the point that her back will never be okay again, due to state healthcare. I have watched the free meds given to her by uncaring doctors drive her insane to the point that four police officers and two EMTs had to drag her out of the cat’s litter box where she was babbling prayers to God (a crisis that is fortunately now past). I have watched my mother dwindled to a 90-pound skeleton, thanks to the benefits of the government.

You are good. You are strong. And you are lucky.

I know I’m lucky (opportunity meets preparation) and I see people every day blessed with the same “luck” that refuse to act on it.

So you think the same state that is “caring” for you sister would be better if it were bigger and more powerful? Why condemn more people to the same situation that your sister suffers in?

 

[Lochias]

Food for the poor was specifically designed to be high in starch and fats because it was always assumed that because the people were poor they would have less of it and they would be doing more physical work.

…so, you admit that what the poor eat is specifically designed to be cheap and unhealthy, yet call the obesity problem an “epidemic of the poor”?

I know I’m lucky (opportunity meets preparation) and I see people every day blessed with the same “luck” that refuse to act on it.

And some people are simply unlucky.

So you think the same state that is “caring” for you sister would be better if it were bigger and more powerful? Why condemn more people to the same situation that your sister suffers in?

I haven’t said a thing about the state stepping in. The rich should help the poor, who should help the rich in the ways that they can.

 

[SamH]

…so, you admit that what the poor eat is specifically designed to be cheap and unhealthy, yet call the obesity problem an “epidemic of the poor”?

.

No.

Read what I typed.

 

[SamH]

…

And some people are simply unlucky.
.

Agreed. But a great many of the poor living on the dole do so out of choice - not necessity.

 

[Lochias]

No.

Read what I typed.

Rather, please clarify what you mean.

 

[SamH]

Rather, please clarify what you mean.

I can’t make it more clear to you.

 

[Lochias]

I can’t make it more clear to you.

Then we’re at an impasse.

 

[andrewstx]

SamH;11115633:

How do you gain weight if not by ingesting food? Only in America is the main desease of the poor obesity.

nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/obe/causes.html

Amount of food eaten can be and is often a factor, yes…but really, that’s more a factor of the obese rich, who can afford lots of food. Environment, preexisting medical conditions, emotional conditions, and many other things can influence and cause obesity. Your bias is overwhelming, and I think you should take a step back and actually look at the issue.

You need to not tell me what I should or shouldn’t do.

Your statement implies that they have no need to work when the government assists them. Clearly, you have never lived on government assistance, or else you’d realize what a hellish nightmare it actually is.

It is fact that obesity causing foods are cheap and easily afforded by the poor. Things like pop, fast food. beans, lard, and fatty meats.

Things like fish, low fat meats, fresh fruits and veggies cost more and are not affordable to the poor.

Ever price boneless, skinless, chicken breast?

 

[stinkcat_14]

So why do more than 50% of the people not pay taxes?

Because our tax code is filled with special interest provisions and many who pay zero taxes are not poor, particularly the elderly.

 

[triumphguy]

So why do more than 50% of the people not pay taxes?

1. That’s a misreading of the actual figures.
2. You mean income tax, because everyone pays sales tax, and then there’s payroll tax etc., etc…

2007 40% of American household did not owe FEDERAL tax.

Due to the economic downturn - and thank the fatcat bankers and their voodoo financial ponzi schemes for that - more Americans did not owe Federal taxes

1. Because their incomes had shrank
2. Because of some temporary tax relief measures.
3. They pay many other STATE and FEDERAL taxes.

cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3505
The 51 percent and 46 percent figures are anomalies that reflect the unique circumstances of the past few years, when the economic downturn greatly swelled the number of Americans with low incomes. The figures for 2009 are particularly anomalous; in that year, temporary tax cuts that the 2009 Recovery Act created — including the “Making Work Pay” tax credit and an exclusion from tax of the first $2,400 in unemployment benefits — were in effect and removed millions of Americans from the federal income tax rolls. Both of these temporary tax measures have since expired.

These figures cover only the federal income tax and ignore the substantial amounts of other federal taxes — especially the payroll tax — that many of these households pay.

Most of the people who pay neither federal income tax nor payroll taxes are low-income people who are elderly, unable to work due to a serious disability, or students, most of whom subsequently become taxpayers.

Moreover, low-income households as a group do, in fact, pay federal taxes. Congressional Budget Office data show that the poorest fifth of households paid an average of 4.0 percent of their incomes in federal taxes in 2007, the latest year for which these data are available — not an insignificant amount given how modest these households’ incomes are; the poorest fifth of households had average income of $18,400 in 2007.[6] The next-to-the bottom fifth — those with incomes between $20,500 and $34,300 in 2007 — paid an average of 10.6 percent of their incomes in federal taxes.
Moreover, even these figures greatly understatelow-income households’ totaltax burden because these households also pay substantial state and local taxes. Data from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy show that the poorest fifth of households paid a stunning 12.3 percent of their incomes in state and local taxes in 2011.[7]

When all federal, state, and local taxes are taken into account, the bottom fifth of households pays about 16 percent of their incomes in taxes, on average. The second-poorest fifth pays about 21 percent.[8]

finally:

the federal income tax system did what it is supposed to do during the recession — take a smaller bite out of people’s incomes. As the temporary tax cuts expire and the economy and incomes strengthen, people’s tax liabilities will rebound (see Figure 1). For example, the Tax Policy Center estimates that the share of households with no federal income tax liability declined to 46.4 percent in 2011, when the aforementioned income tax cuts were no longer in effect (and the unemployment rate was a slight bit below the 2009 level). [12] As the still elevated unemployment rate declines, this percentage will fall further.

I think it’s wrong to vilify the poor and basically call them a drain on society, especially when the FACTS say otherwise…

 

[Jozefo]

1. That’s a misreading of the actual figures.
2. You mean income tax, because everyone pays sales tax, and then there’s payroll tax etc., etc…

2007 40% of American household did not owe FEDERAL tax.

Due to the economic downturn - and thank the fatcat bankers and their voodoo financial ponzi schemes for that - more Americans did not owe Federal taxes

1. Because their incomes had shrank
2. Because of some temporary tax relief measures.
3. They pay many other STATE and FEDERAL taxes.

I think it’s wrong to vilify the poor and basically call them a drain on society, especially when the FACTS say otherwise…

I agree with you. Poor people are victims of the crooked money system. All of them. Even the ones on dope and sleeping under bridges. I’m serious. The love of money us the root of all evil, and this money system is built on it.

 

[triumphguy]

I agree with you. Poor people are victims of the crooked money system. All of them. Even the ones on dope and sleeping under bridges. I’m serious. The love of money us the root of all evil, and this money system is built on it.

I wouldn’t go as far as you and call ALL money lending etc., evil, but the pit that was dug for the millions of unwary to fall in was definitely a trap and a kind of economic slavery, and this was used to prop up some very dodgy financial instruments.

 

[Jozefo]

I wouldn’t go as far as you and call ALL money lending etc., evil, but the pit that was dug for the millions of unwary to fall in was definitely a trap and a kind of economic slavery, and this was used to prop up some very dodgy financial instruments.

Lending at interest is how money is created. Scarcity is built into the system. If a banker lends 100 @ 5%, that extra 5 either has to be borrowed into existence, or taken from someone in an unfair deal.

It causes distrust throughout society, turning everyone against their neighbors. It also enables war for profit. It’s right out of the pit of hell.

Lending with no interest is a good thing to do. It’s a Christian thing to do. It helps everyone.

But usury… very, very bad.

 

[triumphguy]

Lending at interest is how money is created. Scarcity is built into the system. If a banker lends 100 @ 5%, that extra 5 either has to be borrowed into existence, or taken from someone in an unfair deal.

It causes distrust throughout society, turning everyone against their neighbors. It also enables war for profit. It’s right out of the pit of hell.

Lending with no interest is a good thing to do. It’s a Christian thing to do. It helps everyone.

But usury… very, very bad.

Or it’s credited against a reasonable expectation of growth.

And so it’s reasonable to expect payment for the use of the money.

That’s why the baby-boom helped the economy - there’s always growth when the population expands.

 

[Jozefo]

Or it’s credited against a reasonable expectation of growth.

And so it’s reasonable to expect payment for the use of the money.

That’s why the baby-boom helped the economy - there’s always growth when the population expands.

Several points to consider: if you lend to your neighbor at interest, the Church considers it a sin. 7. First of all, show your people with persuasive words that the sin and vice of usury is most emphatically condemned in the Sacred Scriptures; ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/B14VIXPE.htm

That’s bad enough, but when Pope Benedict XIV promulgated that encyclical, it was 1745, before the modern money system was created. This new system creates money based on promises. The money doesn’t exist until the borrower first gives his promise to repay. Seriously. It’s a massive fraud.

And even worse, piling evil atop of evil, is the money being created at interest. There can never be enough money in circulation to ever repay the principal and the interest. It is impossible. The result is debt slavery of the entire world’s populations, except for the few who hold the levers of banking credit.

 

[triumphguy]

Wiki ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#Scholastic_theology )says:

In the 13th century Cardinal Hostiensis enumerated thirteen situations in which charging interest was not immoral.[36] The most important of these was* lucrum cessans *(profits given up) which allowed for the lender to charge interest “to compensate him for profit foregone in investing the money himself.” (Rothbard 1995, p. 46) This idea is very similar to Opportunity Cost. Many scholastic thinkers who argued for a ban on interest charges also argued for the legitimacy of lucrum cessans profits (e.g. Pierre Jean Olivi and St. Bernardino of Siena).

newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm

The Holy See admits practically the lawfulness of interest on loans, even for ecclesiastical property, though it has not promulgated any doctrinal decree on the subject. See the replies of the Holy Office dated 18 August, 1830, 31 August, 1831, 17 January, 1838, 26 March, 1840, and 28 February, 1871; and that of the Sacred Penitentiary of 11 February, 1832. These replies will be found collected in “Collectio Lacensis” (Acta et decreta s. conciliorum recentiorum), VI, col. 677, Appendix to the Council of Pondicherry; and in the “Enchiridion” of Father Bucceroni.

 

[SamH]

It is fact that obesity causing foods** are cheap and easily afforded by the poor**. Things like pop, fast food. beans, lard, and fatty meats.

Things like fish, low fat meats, fresh fruits and veggies cost more and are not affordable to the poor.

Ever price boneless, skinless, chicken breast?

Pop is not cheap, fast food is extremely expensive. When was the last time you bought lard?

The assumption is made that being poor they can’t afford to buy too much food. The other assumption is that the poor will be doing manual labor that burn large amounts of calories. Big miss on both of those.

 

[Jozefo]

Wiki ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#Scholastic_theology )says:

newadvent.org/cathen/15235c.htm

The good cardinal was wrong, according to Pope Bendedict XIV. And if the Holy See is admitting the lawfulness of usury, then it has submitted to the god of this world.

But none of this addresses the evil of money issued on credit. I’m quite confident the Holy See will never condemn this practice, because the Vatican is hip-deep in it.

I can’t tell you how much it pains me to say that. The whole world is worshipping Mammon, and living with the consequences.

 

[Lochias]

Pop is not cheap, fast food is extremely expensive. When was the last time you bought lard?

Actually, you’re wrong on both counts. People can eat at the dollar menu at McD’s for three bucks a serving. It’s hard to find that low of a cost for any meal out-of-pocket.

The assumption is made that being poor they can’t afford to buy too much food. The other assumption is that the poor will be doing manual labor that burn large amounts of calories. Big miss on both of those.

Who’s making this assumption, again?

 

[Lochias]

I think it’s wrong to vilify the poor and basically call them a drain on society, especially when the FACTS say otherwise…

:sad_yes: This.