RE: The sting of poverty (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Hippiekinkster -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 5:18:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

Where does it say, in our constitution that those that create wealth should give to those that, for whatever reason, cannot or choose not to? Just curious....
Where does it say, in our Constitution, that various agencies of the Federal government should give corporations over 150Billion a year in welfare? Just curious. Where does it say that those who make more than 90K (approx) should not have to pay any more FICA tax than those who make 89K? Now THERE'S  a tax cut for the rich if I ever saw one.

In fact, where does it even say that corporations may even be created?

We, and damn near every other country in the world, have a progressive tax code because we collectively acknowledge that, despite the Horatio Alger fantasies of the Libertarians (what a corruption that word has undergone) and other assorted "Social Darwinists" (and there's an example of a bullshit philosophy developed from sound Science) that no wealthy person has gotten there on his own, but rather has used all the institutions of our society to get there. Many of the features of our system aren't available to the poor, including the Patent Office, the SEC, access to lawmakers, Customs, and the Civilian Aviation Administration, to name a few.



charmdpetKeira -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 5:29:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

I think we've created enough government handout programmes to last a life time. After some of the abuses I have seen, making it more difficult for an individual to take advantage of handouts would not hurt my feelings.


I second LaT’s sentiments on government handout programs.
 
The only one’s who benefit from such programs, are the ones who cheat the system.
 
Unfortunately it excludes anyone who really would like to do better for themselves. For them it is employment by the circus.
 
Did you know that 35 and up, is too old to be in the circus?
 
ps. I watched "Gangs of New York". Those be some interesting work ethics.
 
k



Real_Trouble -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 5:29:26 PM)

Meatcleaver,

Your arguments would carry more weight if not for the fact that you cannot seem to abandon a condescending tone and lay off the ad-hominem attacks.  Extremist screeds are often ignored, regardless of content, for just those reasons.

Likewise, what confuses me is this: what is so bad about capitalism?

From what I can see, you are advocating high-minded ideals without explaining how you would achieve this; scarcity is a problem.  There simply is not enough oil in the world to give everyone as much as they want.  Same with food.  Same with clothing.  Same with housing.  What I want to know, is given the cold, hard facts of reality, how you are going to improve things.

In practice, capitalism (or, at least those countries who take a somewhat half-assed stab at it, and still have a large degree of nepotism, socialism, and cronyism) has produced, in almost every case, a much higher standard of living and a much higher level of social well-being than any other system.

Justify to me why what you propose would work and what you would do differently from the others who have bombed out before I am going to listen to you.  I want to hear precisely what you would do, how you would do it, and why it would work better than the current capitalist systems on display in Western Europe, the US, and now certain parts of China.

Thank you.

SugarMyChurro,

quote:

Looking at a corporation like Monsanto, consider all the ways that they are favored by governments to profit from the kind of business that they do. Without a patent on various plant DNA their current business strategy wouldn't mean shit. And personally I don't think that DNA should be something that can be patented. Look at the way states protected Monsanto from fines and lawsuits after they dumped chemicals into the environment.


That's fine, but let me ask you this:

If their current business model should be invalidated, will there be incentive to perform this research?  Or any research company?  If I can find a cure for cancer, but it's going to cost me $50 billion to do so spread over two decades of research, and then I'm going to have a very brief window to make a small profit before everyone steals my method, is there incentive to do this?

I would suggest (and history seems to indicate this is the case, based on the speed of invention before patents and after patents, as well as the fact that the countries in the world which have intellectual property protection are always the leaders in innovation by a startling margin) that without this, there is no incentive.

Why bother to bust my ass to invent something when I can steal it from someone else?

You are right that we all benefit from society collectively, but we all contribute to society collectively as well.  We still have to align the incentives to make sure things work out so that we can have the best possible outcomes; if I "owe" society a debt for everything it has provided me, then society also owes me a debt for everything I have provided it.  In each case, the net balance of that debt needs to be determined somehow.

Keira,

quote:

Do you realize how much is thrown away just to keep prices up. How about how the government pays farmers not to grow food?


Yes, actually, I do.  I have also been advocating we eliminate farming subsidies for ten years running now.  

But you have not answered my initial question; before the US or farm subsidies even existed, there were food shortages.  Let us transplant this problem, say, to ancient Egypt.  If I have enough food for only 15 people in ancient Egypt (and that is the minimum amount; if I give less to anyone, they die), and 20 people, how do I allocate that food?

There are times when there is not enough for everyone.

quote:

Being productive does not make you feel good?

Each person would be considered with truth, accepted for what/who they are, respected as such, and acted responsibly toward. What they choose to do is up to them.


Not enough to work 60 - 80 hours a week like I currently do, most certainly.  If I were not being paid, or were being paid much less, there are many other things I would do with my time.

If you are going to accept me for who I am, I'm going to spend a lot more time writing, practicing martial arts, and reading than I currently do.  I'm going to spend a lot less time at my job, which while I find it grinding and tedious at times, I will suggest is extremely profitable for society for me to be at.

This would be a better solution for me personally, but a worse solution for society.  You have removed my incentive to work as much as I do.

quote:

How can you possibly know this. Have you lived in a place where people were not concerned where their next meal will come from, or other basic needs are met; without them have to kill themselves working, to get it?


I would like to refer you to the MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences (MITECS) as a starting point.  Some other good books are Social Cognition: Making Sense of People by Ziva Kunda, Mean Genes by Terry Burnham and Jay Phelan, or really, any textbook on social groups and theory.

I can dig up the study from Harvard's psych department demonstrating most people would rather make $60k and have everyone else make $50k at a company than make $90k with everyone else making $100k.

People are, by nature, competitive.  There are evolutionary reasons for this, and I would suggest to you that I can quite confidently state that human nature conspires against any egalitarian and equality-based regime.  It is simply anathema to humans.

quote:

We’ve got people here left on the streets to die, after they have submitted. Check into the homeless vets.


I have never claimed we were perfect, but let me offer you a choice, then:

Do you want to live here or Myanmar?

Your pick.

quote:

It is hard to account for how much will be left over, of the type of thing you are bringing up here, without knowing the full effects of people not being worried about how they will “get by”.


You bring this up repeatedly, so I will ask you a hard question:

There is less oil in the world than demand for oil.  There is less food in the world than demand for food.  There are less porsches in the world than demand for porsches.  And so on.

How do you decide who gets what?  There is not enough to give everyone everything they want!  Convincing them to want less is not going to happen (read the books I mention above); people are competitive and always want more than their neighbors.

At what point, and how, will there be enough to go around for what everyone wants.

quote:

The minds of the people alter reality all the time. I’m only asking them to stop.


This is patently false with regard to what I am talking about.

Will the minds of humanity alter how gravity works?  No.  Will the minds of humanity alter particle physics?  No.  Can we just imagine more oil and have it exist?  No.  Can we imagine more food?  No.

Your statement is totally absurd.

quote:

How about if people stop saying it won’t work for just a moment (think of it as a game), and start trying to figure out how it could work?


I have tried to do this; so have many others.  If there was a miracle solution, it would already be in place.  The problem of scarcity, resource distribution, and human nature is a very intractable and long-standing one, and exists for a reason.

I am very serious when I say this: what you advocate will not work.  Like it or not, we live in a world where not everyone can have everything they want; this will not change.



SugarMyChurro -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 5:32:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster
...no wealthy person has gotten there on his own, but rather has used all the institutions of our society to get there.


Obvious to some. Like to talking to a wall as far as everyone else is concerned.

[:-]



Vampz -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 7:15:33 PM)

There will always be those who are poor- there always have been. But man, saying people cop out to live on Welfare is so unreal!!! One can't "live" on that amt! It is way below the poverty level!
 
Need life 101 taught in schools- get the message to the kids- give them role models, Let them believe in their own creativity. Don't hold them back by heaping judgments on them and the various labels.
 
And get Bush the fk out of the White House! He was not elected he bought his way in! Our tax money is going to Iraq! And our soldiers are coming back disabled and not getting the health care they need. A whole new set of poverty group is being created! All you need do is ask the wounded, the people from Vietnam who are struggling to get by- it is horrible... War is such a bad-bad thing.
 
People you have got to speak out! Impeach Bush and Cheney for the death squad they really are! Over 4000 of our soldiers, over 1 million of Iraq's and our National Debt is highest ever! Saddam didn't strike against the USA.
 
Get our tax money back, put it to use for our own people and our own Country! Get our Middle Class back and really end this new massive cycle of poverty that is NOW happening.
 



charmdpetKeira -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 7:24:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Trouble

Yes, actually, I do.  I have also been advocating we eliminate farming subsidies for ten years running now.  


Are programs that pay to help a business run, the same ones that pay them not to?  

quote:

But you have not answered my initial question; before the US or farm subsidies even existed, there were food shortages.  Let us transplant this problem, say, to ancient Egypt.  If I have enough food for only 15 people in ancient Egypt (and that is the minimum amount; if I give less to anyone, they die), and 20 people, how do I allocate that food?


If you want to debate this with me; your going to have to keep it in America, and present day.

quote:

If you are going to accept me for who I am, I'm going to spend a lot more time writing, practicing martial arts, and reading than I currently do.  I'm going to spend a lot less time at my job, which while I find it grinding and tedious at times, I will suggest is extremely profitable for society for me to be at.

Yes, well, since I don’t know exactly what you do; I can not decide that for myself. Since I am against just taking people’s word for it; your suggestion remains to be speculation.
However, it is most likely, if you do not give your services away to the people, you are benefiting government more then society.

quote:

This would be a better solution for me personally, but a worse solution for society.  You have removed my incentive to work as much as I do.

Not to say your job is not difficult, but do you think if the obstacles were not in the way, there could be more people able to do your job?

quote:

I can dig up the study from Harvard's psych department demonstrating most people would rather make $60k and have everyone else make $50k at a company than make $90k with everyone else making $100k.


Lol… you’re a funny guy. I’ll take $60k and let you have the $100k, over my, just over $20k, any day.
Unless of course $60k is the equivalent of $20k if you have $100k; then we're back to ground zero.

quote:

People are, by nature, competitive.  There are evolutionary reasons for this, and I would suggest to you that I can quite confidently state that human nature conspires against any egalitarian and equality-based regime.  It is simply anathema to humans.

Being competitive is not the problem; thinking one must fight to the death, even when its not necessary, is.
You are talking about equality? I’m talking about balance.
quote:

Do you want to live here or Myanmar?

Your pick.


You know what, if I were being told the truth about what is going on around me, then I would've been able to make an informed decision. Since I wasn't, and the nature of the beast is to lie through its teeth, and then tell me I should like it; I ain’t buying.
If you don’t want to live by the stated goal; you move.
quote:

You bring this up repeatedly, so I will ask you a hard question:

There is less oil in the world than demand for oil.


Try other sources for energy.

quote:

There is less food in the world than demand for food.


I am not concerning myself with the world at this time. They are going to have to work toward getting what they need themselves.
Sound cold? Sorry, I don’t believe it is wise to instruct one’s neighbor on how to do something, when I haven’t figured it out for myself.
quote:

There are less porsches in the world than demand for porsches.  And so on.

How much money is wasted on manufacturing the “lesser” vehicle, because the one’s who want the Porsches cant afford them?

quote:

How do you decide who gets what?  There is not enough to give everyone everything they want!  Convincing them to want less is not going to happen (read the books I mention above); people are competitive and always want more than their neighbors.

I guess this is it in a nutshell; I must not be a people. Actually, its kind of a relief.

quote:

At what point, and how, will there be enough to go around for what everyone wants.

I tell you what; make a list of what everyone wants, then get back to me; we’ll take it from there.
quote:

Your statement is totally absurd.


I beg to differ. People sit here trying to sell government, as if it is a good thing, all the time; after that, nothing makes a difference.

quote:

I have tried to do this; so have many others.  If there was a miracle solution, it would already be in place.

Of course it would. I mean the government would have done that right. Because then they would not be so rich, standing on the backs of others. Where is their incentive? 
quote:

I am very serious when I say this: what you advocate will not work.  Like it or not, we live in a world where not everyone can have everything they want; this will not change.


It is almost sad to know in another 10ish years, you will be looking back saying “Fuck, where did it all go.” Hopefully, your time put in and pretty toilet paper will be enough for you; that those you helped buried with your “we cant” attitude, will be of no concern to you.
 
k



MmeGigs -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 8:33:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

The reason is that you think that you know what a fair wage is when in fact you dont. There would be no agreement on the matter and to implement the policy would require massive govnt expenditure covering assessment and appeals.
What for example is a fair wage for riveting a saucepan together in plants in say Mississippi and Minnesota? Add the complication of  different family conditions  requiring different levels of family income to remove the tax subsidies you complain about and I hope you see its a bit more difficult than you appear to think.


The difficulty - the impossibility, really - is political.  As beholden as our politicians are to business for political contributions, and as opposed as business is to even minor adjustments in the minimum wage, it would take a minor miracle for the issue to be brought up in Congress.  It would be tantamount to political suicide for any federal elected official to introduce it.

Technically, it wouldn't be all that diffuclt.  There's actually quite a bit of agreement about what constitutes a living wage.  I've heard from both lefties and righties in positions to know about such things that it's figured at somewhere between $12 and $15 an hour.  We have the infrastructure to implement it already in place, we'd just have to bump up the federal minimum wage.  I'd be happy to start by raising the minimum wage to $12 an hour and committing to revisiting it in a year or two.  For a family of four with two full-time workers, that would put them just over the federal low-income threshold.  I'll bet that most low-income folks would be okay with that, too.  It wouldn't be The Perfect One-Size-Fits-All Solution - there is no such thing - but it would be a big step in the right direction.

The idea that it would be a huge expense to implement this is just silly.  It wouldn't cost the govt any more to raise the minimum wage by $5 than it would to raise it by 5¢.  We spend billions of dollars subsidizing low wages now.  It's not just federal tax money being spent.  A hefty amount of sales tax, property tax, state income tax, lottery revenue, etc. goes to programs like housing assistance, health care, day care assistance, fuel and heating subsidies, and food programs that help low-income working people to survive.  A hefty amount of the money that is given to non-profit organizations goes to support low-income working folks, too.  Prices would go up some if workers were paid a living wage, but while wages are the biggest single cost in most products, they're one of many costs, and not a majority of the price.  It's estimated that a living wage would increase prices by single-digit percentages.  When you figure in savings from govt and charity programs that would no longer be needed it's nearly a wash. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
When taken to its logical conclusion it follows that in the ultimate, Left Wing economics requires the state, ie federal govnt, to run things to allegedly  improve everybody's quality of life and eliminate poverty from society.
That is the pipe dream of Socialism.


It's some pretty weird logic would lead to this conclusion.  Fair wages aren't socialism - they're fundamental free-market capitalism.  The whole idea behind the "free market" is that it can sustain itself and our national economy without input and interference from the government, is it not?  In order for a "free market" to sustain itself, all of the people involved - investors, owners, customers and employees - have to be getting a fair shake.  We understand that investors need to see a reasonable ROI, that owners need to make a reasonable profit, that customers need the best value for their dollar.  Why is it so tough to grasp that employees need enough take-home pay to cover basic living expenses? 

It's strange to me that someone who calls himself a social conservative is so willing to declare the situation impossible and continue shelling out tax dollars for social programs and financial supports for low-income workers when the market could so easily address (or be made to address) the problem. 



MmeGigs -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 8:53:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: missfrillypants

if you're going to raise the wage, which is actually something that's a good idea, there needs to be some kind of provision for small businesses so they can afford to pay their employees the new wage.



I don't think that we would need to do this.  I think that small businesses would actually benefit from living wage legislation.  They can't pay better than their larger competitors do and can't offer advancement to jobs that will pay a decent wage, so they have a hard time keeping good employees.  Most small business people know all of their employees personally and really feel bad about paying them what they know are crappy wages and not being able to offer benefits, but they feel they have no choice - they can't pay more than the competition does.  If their competition is forced to pay a living wage and raise prices, they can do this for their employees and still be competitive.



Real_Trouble -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 10:40:48 PM)

quote:

If you want to debate this with me; your going to have to keep it in America, and present day.


And why are you the only one who can set the rules of a debate?  I think not.  This will be my last post in response to you.  I am uninterested in having a discussion with those who will not confront issues head on, and you have shown your true colors here.

quote:

Yes, well, since I don’t know exactly what you do; I can not decide that for myself. Since I am against just taking people’s word for it; your suggestion remains to be speculation.
However, it is most likely, if you do not give your services away to the people, you are benefiting government more then society.


How would I be benefitting government by not working, exactly?  I mean, in any given job, if I stay home rather than work, I do not follow this logic.  That is less money earned, and thus less taxes.  This is less services delivered to the public.

I fail to see how my cutting back to 35 - 40 hours instead of 60 - 80 would have a material impact on the government, of all things, other than less tax money because I wouldn't be raking in the kind of raises I get now for them to tax me on.

quote:

Not to say your job is not difficult, but do you think if the obstacles were not in the way, there could be more people able to do your job?


In short?  No.  The primary obstacle to doing my current job is competence; we've been interviewing at work this entire past month, and of the 25 people I have personally interviewed, I gave 1 a passing grade.

Now, making education more affordable would definitely increase the potential supply of applicants, so you could have some degree of boost there, but until we do so in countries other than America, I don't think there will be a huge benefit.  While I am sure we miss some, I doubt we miss most extremely talented people in the US; I don't think this is true of, say, Chad or Zimbabwe or some such.

quote:

Lol… you’re a funny guy. I’ll take $60k and let you have the $100k, over my, just over $20k, any day.
Unless of course $60k is the equivalent of $20k if you have $100k; then we're back to ground zero.


You are dodging my point here; the bottom line is that people, on average, will not do this.  Perhaps you are an idealistic outlier (I think that is fair to claim).  Most people aren't.  How do you plan to deal with this?

Yet again you refuse to confront an argument head-on.

quote:

Being competitive is not the problem; thinking one must fight to the death, even when its not necessary, is.
You are talking about equality? I’m talking about balance.


I don't know many people who are fighting to the death in America; you previously wanted to constrain our debate to present-day America, I might point out.  We don't have angry mobs roaming the streets murdering each other in large groups to steal basic goods.  We go to the store.

Nobody (or at least very few) thinks they need to fight to the death.

quote:

You know what, if I were being told the truth about what is going on around me, then I would've been able to make an informed decision. Since I wasn't, and the nature of the beast is to lie through its teeth, and then tell me I should like it; I ain’t buying.
If you don’t want to live by the stated goal; you move.


So you are seriously telling me that you don't have a basis to decide between living in the US or living in Myanmar?

I suppose your inability to do even very basic research is your problem, not mine, but this strikes me as staggeringly and painfully ignorant.  Again, I cannot help but think your views are uninformed and not thought out if this is the quality of your responses.  That is not to be cruel, but when you repeatedly fall back on "I don't know" or "I won't answer" for basically verifiable and understandable things, that is not a debate in good faith.  That is an idealogically-driven argument not based on fact or reality.

quote:

Try other sources for energy.


And what happens when the demand for those outstrips supply?  You merely push the question into the very near future.

quote:

I am not concerning myself with the world at this time. They are going to have to work toward getting what they need themselves.
Sound cold? Sorry, I don’t believe it is wise to instruct one’s neighbor on how to do something, when I haven’t figured it out for myself.


Really? Because...

quote:

If you want to debate this with me; your going to have to keep it in America, and present day.


It seems you are concerning yourself with the world at this time.

quote:

I tell you what; make a list of what everyone wants, then get back to me; we’ll take it from there.


Coincidentally, I have actually done this.  It's pretty trivial.  This is precisely the information that prices are reflecting, in conjunction with supply pressures, in a free market!

Things that people want more or are in short supply cost more.  Especially if both are the case.

Things that people don't want much or are in large supply cost less.  Especially, again, if both are the case.

What you observe every day in the form of prices is communicating this information to you, even if you choose to ignore it.  The fact that we cannot all afford everything we want (notice I say want, not need) proves there is not enough to go around; the fact that some cannot afford what they need proves that there could be major shortages in certain situations.

quote:

I beg to differ. People sit here trying to sell government, as if it is a good thing, all the time; after that, nothing makes a difference.


I would like you to find me a place where I have sold government as a good thing.  At best, I regard it as the least-bad bad thing.  I am not a big government proponent; I just understand that having no government at all is a recipe for disaster.  It is a necessary evil.

quote:

Of course it would. I mean the government would have done that right. Because then they would not be so rich, standing on the backs of others. Where is their incentive?


Who is this "the government" you talk about, anyways?  Governments are composed of individual people, all trying to achieve their own goals.  If you decry governments for stepping on the backs of others and taking too much money, then you are simply decrying people for this.  Abolishing governments will just lead to people doing this in other ways.  Corporations do the same thing, from a very cynical point of view.  So do bandits.  So do individuals.  This is not new, it is not unique to governments, and claiming they are everything that is wrong is incredibly naive.

quote:

It is almost sad to know in another 10ish years, you will be looking back saying “Fuck, where did it all go.” Hopefully, your time put in and pretty toilet paper will be enough for you; that those you helped buried with your “we cant” attitude, will be of no concern to you.


I very much doubt I will be unhappy, actually.  I'm very happy with my life right now, and I expect to continue to be so (or perhaps even more so) going forward.

I will be blunt with you, however, on one point:

I do not have a "we can't" attitude.  I have repeatedly encouraged, helped, and supported others in a variety of endeavors, and I am regarded extremely well by many groups of people as an authority, an expert, and someone you can ask for help.

The trick is that I don't help people who have not done their own homework first, I do not help people who are incompetent, and when I believe you are wrong, I will tell you that I believe you are wrong so that you can think it over and possibly learn from your mistakes.  Or, I will turn out to be wrong, and I have certainly changed my mind in the face of well thought out arguments before; I don't change my mind based on "just believe", however.  I'm not going to be nice and humor you when you are trying things I firmly believe will not work under any circumstances.

In my opinion your egalitarian and idealist fantasies simply do not hold up in the face of reality; that's nobody's fault, it's just how it is.

I'm done debating with you if you will neither confront my questions, support your own views with facts and research, or create a coherent argument.  I believe reality is on my side of this debate, and I've certainly provided much more evidence to support my views, given that you refuse to do the same for your own.

Enjoy.



QuietlySeeking -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/16/2008 5:20:23 AM)

I hate to burst your bubble, but it is simply impossible to double the minimum wage without a subsequent doubling (or more) of prices.  I was part of the $3.35 to $4.25 minimum wage increase and I saw my new-found earnings buying far less than the raise I received.  I saw anyone who wasn't making minimum wage lose significant buying power.

Do you really think that a 50% increase in the highest cost of most products won't result in a 25% increase in price?  Let's take a hamburger.  If the cost of getting beef to the restaurant rises by 25%, and the cost of getting a hamburger bun rises by 25%, and the cost of putting that burger together rises by 25%...it's a cumulative effect, not a 25% rise in the price of a burger, but 50% rise in the ingredients and a 25% rise in the labor, which will passed on to the consumer.

How fast has the price of food risen because of gas prices?  How fast do you think prices will rise if we double the cost of labor, thus increasing the highest overhead point of almost every business?



QuietlySeeking -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/16/2008 5:48:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
I know the US constitution is sacred to Americans, that it is an ideological constitution but where does it actually say it is officially an ideological capitalist state? Where does it say that the poor should be denied healthcare? Where does it say the poor should be denied decent education, decent housing or that they should be forgotten about in natural disasters? They are policies followed by a government, a government that looks after the rich at the expense of the poor. That has nothing to do with the constitution, it has to do with the socio-political culture.

Strange, that same government make sure that a minimum level of public education is provided to all students, regardless of income.  Many of "the rich" don't send their children to public schools so what purpose does that serve?

Social Security -- wow, the rich REALLY collect a bunch from SSI.  Nope, the majority of those benefits go to low income/middle income people.

Healthcare/Medicare -- Medicare or Medicaid (I can't remember which) the program that allows people who can't afford health insurance to have a gov't sponsored insurance.  Most states here in the US also have a supplemental insurance program that helps the poor.  In addition, there are many non-profits and for-profit hospitals that provide reduced or free care to those who cannot afford it.

"Decent Housing" -- I've already addressed the use of "decent" in an earlier post.  You get what you can afford, just like everywhere else.  There is subsidized housing here in the United States.  There are $300/month apartments in Atlanta GA, if you choose to have a roommate.  If you can't afford to pay for your own housing, you don't get to choose your neighbors.

"Ideological Capitalist State" -- this is a misnomer.  We are not completely a capitalist state.  There are plenty of industries that are heavily regulated by the government, almost to the point of socialism.  There are price supports for farming...that's sort of anti-capitalist, eh?

I've addressed most of these issues over and over in this thread and others.

You choose to look at all of the things the United States hasn't done.  I choose to look at all of the things we have, and at reasonable opportunities to do more.

You say that as a capitalist, I work and consume.  I say that as a
"successful capitalist", I have the opportunity to give 20% of my income to charities that I believe help the poor.  You say that as a capitalist, I want to keep the poor down. I say that as a "successful capitalist", I have time to volunteer to lift people up because I am not working 80+ hours per week to survive.  You say, that the United States is incompetent and corrupt.  I say that all governments are incompetent and corrupt.

You say, look at all these things you haven't done.  I say, maybe if they worry you so much, take the lead and do something about it. 

And if you truly think that the US is so bad, why are you on a site sponsored by a US Company, funded primarily with US money, hosted in the US? 
Boycott us, please!



caitlyn -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/16/2008 6:29:47 AM)

General ...
 
As a younger American, its curious to see yet another discussion turn in to a battle between rivals on the far ends ... "eat the rich" and "the wealthy all worked for it." It would seem to me that neither is entirely and universally true.
 
Also curious is to see posts about all the wonderful services that are available for those in need. That is also not entirely true ... there are some places that have good services, some that have nothing and some that have what turns out to be far worse than nothing.
 
Every day I get older, and every day I start to wonder just a little more, if we will ever solve any of our problems.



QuietlySeeking -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/16/2008 6:39:45 AM)

caitlyn,
I wondered that exact same thing and decided something a few years ago...

If I don't do it, nobody else will.  Funny thing, once I got involved, I realized that there are a whole lot of people out there doing it every day and don't get a bit of publicity while the "20 million Americans are suffering from <insert societal ill here>" headlines are published in bold face, front page.

My fiancee's brother is a teenage cancer survivor.  Make-A-Wish and those foundations made her life a little easier, her family's life easier, even through a devastating illness.  That headline didn't get bandied about on the front page.

My church group goes to the drug rehab center one Friday every month to serve dinner and talk with people who are truly poor.  Giving a little hope to someone who has little else is a humbling experience...

Everything I do may not solve all the problems, but I can look into some faces that I've helped and know that at least that child/parent/person got some help.  If that's a selfish thing or wrong, count me guilty on both counts.

I think we (as a country) can do better, but continuously reminding someone of their failures will simply reinforce that those failures are normal rather than producing the positive attitude necessary to change.



seeksfemslave -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/16/2008 6:41:39 AM)

MmeGigs: I think you make good posts on this problem of poverty and do not rely on sentiment to make your points.
First I assume that a federally mandated minimum wage applies to all businesses everywhere in the US. You propose nearly doubling that wage and expect govnt expenditure would diminish and the poor would disappear.
Dont forget the minimum wage increase would ripple up thru' any company so that differentials may be maintained.

This is what I think would actually happen......
Many businesses would shift towards the black economy to avoid the increases.
Many small economically marginal businesses would shed labour.
Some small business would fail altogether.
Employment prospects for all would reduce.
For the low skilled  and the higher skilled because the wage increases would reduce the return that can be obtained from their labour. I nearly mentioned the dirty word profit there but caught myself in time.

Large corporations, which everybody here seems to hate, would either survive or ship even more jobs abroad so that my proverbial saucepan would now be made in China,. Probably already is but you get my point.

In the short time prices would rise and in the long term prices would rise sufficient to cancel out the minimum wage increases.
ie we would end up where we started.
Am I wrong?

I am as sympathetic as the next person to those who live hand to mouth thru' no fault of their own. I just carnt see a practical solution other than massive state, ie federal,control, which I dont want. Do you ?






caitlyn -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/16/2008 6:55:29 AM)

I agree with you to a point, but see the need for far too much luck, for those who are down on their luck.



LaTigresse -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/16/2008 7:50:00 AM)

And no, we will never solve the problems. Quite simply because we are human. Having problems is a human condition.




camille65 -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/16/2008 7:53:37 AM)

I agree that this cannot be solved but I wish it could be lessened.

There will always be those that care nothing about others, ones that trod over people to make their success a reality and ones that prefer to drift along doing as little as possible.



charmdpetKeira -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/16/2008 8:08:55 AM)

Actually, I was setting rules for myself; you are more then welcome to discuss ancient Egypt all you wish, without me.

The question about removing obstacles had to do with having better school systems, which I don’t believe the government will try to accomplish because people like me might succeed. We wouldn’t want people questioning their system; now would we?

I’m sorry to hear there are so few intelligent people in the US.

I believe you are asking how I would convince people not to be greedy. Yes?

My personal belief is that most people are greedy because they fear they may, at some point, not have enough, or they are jealous that someone else might have more. I believe this is done even if the item desired, is not even actually wanted, as a safety precaution toward security.

Therefore, if people felt confident hording was not necessary, much of this behavior would stop. I agree there will most likely be a few left over, who will still do as you are suggesting. Those people could be interviewed, to find out what their reasons are, for the behavior, and working to satisfy their needs as individuals.

My reference to “fighting to the death” was metaphoric. It was directed toward the “fuck or be fucked” attitude many have.

Your question about living in Myanmar came across as a “It could be worse, so put up and shut up”. This is why I gave you the answer I did.

No I do not wish to have a military dictatorship, but it apears to me, we are headed that way with all this "war on terror"

Please do not pretend you know me, what I am able, or not able to do. Am I ignorant? Sure thing; aren’t we all in some way(s)?

My first thought toward other sources of energy was solar. You can figure out for yourself what would happen once that was gone.

I am under the impression that government would rather keep us chained to the things that will cost us money, instead of helping us to refine the ideas that would save us money.

I do not know if you are questioning why I am not concerned with the world, or why I feel it is unwise to help others achieve something, I have not figured out how to do for myself.

Iraq; prime example. We can’t fix it for them.

America is the world to you? Or are you pointing out that America is part of the world?

So, you’ve talked with everyone? Can you remind me what I wanted?

You keep saying there isn’t enough and such and such proves it, only I do not see how you can calculate that, when you can’t know what things would be like if we stopped wasting money, and weren’t trying to compete with prices amoungst ourselves.

I’ll tell you what I observe every day. I watch the receiving person throw out food that is still perfectly good to eat, and other items, because, god forbid, someone should get it at low cost or free. I see cheap items brought in from other countries, so that we are buying merchandise, the equivalent of disposable lighters, that will need to be replaced in a short time. We even ship back stuff that no one wants, yet someone felt the need to make it. Why? To get money.
I won’t bother to go into the fact that good, bad, and evil are made up concepts.

I am not against such things as committees. I am not against having representatives to deal with other countries. I am not against having guidelines, such as what I mentioned earlier, “truth, acceptance, respect, and responsibility”.

What I am against is having people telling me one thing, when I know what they are saying is a lie. I am against giving control to people who not only do not know me, but couldn’t care less about me. Whose main goal, is to do for them off the backs of others.

If people wouldn’t accept lies and secrets from those close to them, why do they do so, from people who are supposed to be representing them? And why were these liars given so much power?
 
I did not say you were saying government was good, I said  people here say it is good.
 
Government is a concept, practiced by people.

Our government is composed of, according to another poster here, (not this thread) "a bunch of rich inbreeds". I did some research, and was astounded that it seems so many of the people in high government positions, over the decades, are either blood related, related by marriage, or friends of the family. Other relatives of theirs have run many big businesses.

Probably coincidental though, right?

One of the problems I had with answering your questions was that you kept asking what I would do.
It wasn’t about me.

I’m done though, no point in advocating for something for the people, when they don’t even want it.

My best,

k



SugarMyChurro -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/16/2008 11:15:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse
And no, we will never solve the problems. Quite simply because we are human. Having problems is a human condition.


That's too fatalistic for me. Yikes!

For me much of this breaks down mainly into a two camps: pro-corporate, and anti-corporate. We are well beyond anything like traditional liberal or conservative factions and are very under the thumb of multinationals that have bought our legislators and dictated the terms of how our society will progress into the future. That's a fact.

And yes, all politicians are beholden to the corporations which leaves people like me entirely disenfranchised. I am pro-natural citizen, and therefore generally anti-fictitious person and anti-corporate too.

Two interesting definitions from wiki:

Fascism: Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to forge a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Corporatism: Historically, corporatism or corporativism (Italian: corporativismo) refers to a political or economic system in which power is given to civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and professional groups. These civic assemblies are known as corporations (not necessarily the business model known as a 'corporation', though such businesses are not excluded from the definition either). Corporations are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over the social and economic life of their respective areas. Thus, for example, a steel corporation would be a cartel composed of all the business leaders in the steel industry, coming together to discuss a common policy on prices and wages. When the political and economic power of a country rests in the hands of such groups, then a corporatist system is in place. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatist



dcnovice -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/16/2008 11:27:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

I agree with you to a point, but see the need for far too much luck, for those who are down on their luck.


I'm struck by many folks' resistance to accepting that luck generally plays a huge role in one's economic situation. Whether you're born into a prosperous family, have success-creating values instilled in you, get a decent education, meet the right people, have the drive to succeed in a difficult world, and come equipped with the mental and physical tools to do well are often matters of chance.

I suspect this comes from needing a sense of personal achievement. If we recognize that the poor may not totally deserve their plight, then must we face the hard fact that we haves don't totally deserve our success either? Few of us seem willing to face that.




Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
7.910156E-02