Our financial system is crumbling this week.

[vinsanity]

The number of people living under the poverty level is now almost 50 million. Of that number, approx. 13% are adults and 21% are children. Seems like the perfect time to cut programs like SCHIP and the like to me.

No way. Giving welfare to those 21% who are born in to poverty just teaches them to live off the system and squeeze kids out for more money. Let em starve and we'll have less people in poverty. Except for the crack babies the 16 year old prostitutes squeeze out because abortion should be illegal and birth control expensive.

[Leroy]

You must be right on the deduction thing vinsanity.

And I understand sarcasm as much as most. But my wife and I had a discussion last night. Her best friend or close to it found out a couple years ago that they can't have children. I don't know why, and don't want to know. But they were excited that they found someone that would give her child up for adoption. They were thrilled. Within a day, they found out that they may not be able to adopt the child because a friend of the mother would like to adopt the kid. Why? Because of government funds. I don't know if it is true or not, but that's what Mrs. Leroy told me.

[sighyoung]

That gibes with an editorial in yesterday's paper, in which a columnist lamented the extension of voting rights to the poor and the working class in the 1820's and 1830's. I kid you not.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/ ... ing-rights

[Joe Shlabotnik]

The number of people living under the poverty level is now almost 50 million. Of that number, approx. 13% are adults and 21% are children. Seems like the perfect time to cut programs like SCHIP and the like to me.

Yup. If those 50 million losers weren't shiftless and lazy, they wouldn't be poor now would they? Best thing to do is gets them off the insurance rolls too so that when they get sick they can die. Culling the herd will make it stronger.

[vinsanity]

Why? Because of government funds. I don't know if it is true or not, but that's what Mrs. Leroy told me.

It's sad when a couple can't have kids, and it's rough when you find an apparently solution that doesn't work because of Government Red Tape. My understanding is that's one of the reasons people adopt from foreign countries more often, there's more guarantee and less red tape. I'm sure Amy can speak more on it than I.

But there were 408k kids in foster care as of 12 months ago with almost 100k of them up for adoption. I feel for your friends in that situation, but it's not like there aren't thousands upon thousands of other kids who need homes as well. Say nothing of those who are going to bed hungry but still with their parents or unaccounted for in the system.

[planet planet]

That gibes with an editorial in yesterday's paper, in which a columnist lamented the extension of voting rights to the poor and the working class in the 1820's and 1830's. I kid you not.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/ ... ing-rights

The column made me throw up in my mouth and I use that overplayed expression sparingly.

[planet planet]

I loved this comment from a Huff Post message board:

Conservati­ves believe that capitalism is a perfect meritocrac­y, and that everyone gets exactly what he deserves based on his talents and efforts. The bottom 50% of Americans own 2.5% of the national wealth. That means, in conservati­ve-think, that the bottom 50% of Americans are only contributi­ng 2.5% of the value to our economy. Supose that the bottom 50% went on strike for a month. Do you think that the economy would only shrink a negligible 2.5%, for that month, or would it come to a screeching halt? Now imagine that the CEO's of the Fortune 500 get sick and tired of being accused of being overpaid, and quit en masse. Would the American economy even skip a beat? Or would those CEOs quickly be replaced without the average person noticing that something was different?

[Joe Shlabotnik]

Conservati­ves believe that capitalism is a perfect meritocrac­y, and that everyone gets exactly what he deserves based on his talents and efforts.

Ayn Rand-ism is what it really is. That kind of thinking leads to atrocities on a horrific scale. I hope America avoids it. But debate audiences cheering at the suggestion to let the uninsured die gives you a hint as to where we could be going if we are not careful.

[slide_into_first]

Since Krugman keeps saying, no matter how much is spent on jobs packages and green jobs and alien invasions, that the amount of stimulus is far too little, I think we ought to discuss all such packages in Krugman units. So if we really need $30 trillion in stimulus, then let’s call that one Krugman. $3 trillion can be a mini-Krugman. And $300bln can be a micro-Krugman. So the latest jobs package is about 1.5 micro-Krugmans. Hardly seems worth it.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/293758- ... -nostalgia

[lukethedrifter]

That gibes with an editorial in yesterday's paper, in which a columnist lamented the extension of voting rights to the poor and the working class in the 1820's and 1830's. I kid you not.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/ ... ing-rights

Just for clarification, that is an Op Ed piece written by a member of the community not an Editorial written by a newspaper editorial board member.