RE: The sting of poverty (Full Version)

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



Message


meatcleaver -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 7:50:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking

As I read cjan's last post (#154), I realized....this is much ado about nothing.  meatcleaver doesn't have the answers, nor do I.
Since you suggested it, I'll put it on the reading list, okay?

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
QuietlySeeking, I'm assuming you are pretending to be stupid. Capitalism needs its gulags too, to keep people in line, poverty is capitalism's gulag. If you don't conform to the ideolgy of capitalism, you will end up in poverty which is capitalism's gulag.


Poverty is a state...not a punishment, not a prison, not the ultimate goal of any -ology or -ism (unless you count some religious orders).
Poverty can be solved with money/stuff. 
Money/stuff are resources which are limited.
There isn't enough money/stuff to solve each person's poverty, according to each person's desire to have enough money/stuff.

What I've found about local/state/federal/world economic systems is summed up in an earlier post.  I resubmit it for your pleasure.


All I can say is you are a capitalist's wet dream.
quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking
quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver
Anecdotes are meaningless, we can all draw on an anecdote to prove our point.


And yet you relied on them in an attempt to rebut one of my earlier points?



No I didn't, you obviously didn't read what I wrote.




meatcleaver -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 7:54:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking

From the post above, I begin to realize that your ideology revolves around some fictitious "material needs" argument.  The reality is: each person's poverty is determined solely by their own view of their own world.  Your "material needs" argument revolves around the same thing (your view of your world).  Any world-view that opposes yours is wrong.
Have I finally got it?


Material needs are not fictitious, which is a strange suggestion coming from an obvious capitalist and capitalism being the most materialist of all materialist ideologies.




charmdpetKeira -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 7:58:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Floggings4You

So, are you saying that I should not be allowed (and who are you going to appoint to stop Me, and using what means?) to paint a $6K painting, until I have a buyer lined up?


No.
 
quote:

Painting is both self-expression, and a source of income, for Me.  It's not something I can set aside, until the market improves, or until you think that My time would be well-spent.[/quote] 

You do not seem to see, you would not NEED to use your talent as a source of income, it could be all about self-expression; if you wanted.

quote:

This is My life, and I have the right to use it however I see fit, provided I don't infringe on anyO/one else's right to do the same, in the process of pursuing My own interests (that's what freedom means!)


Sure thing, and this is our planet, if we do not put our individual wants aside, long enough to get together; no ones individualism means shit.
 
Freedom= lack of responsibility.
 
Keep your freedom, you can have mine too; give me liberty.

quote:

But, businesspeople and government employees are part of 'the people', and they have their needs, just like the rest of U/us.[/quote]

Look around you; right now big business and the government ARE the people. We are expendable tokens.
 
Government and big business run on concepts, it is the concept I wish to eliminate.

quote:


You seem to want everyO/one to enjoy the same things as You.  Not everyO/one does...making luxury/quality items is what some people call 'fun'. 
 
 
Not sure how you got that out of what you quoted.

quote:

I have to have certain things in order to live and enjoy My life. 


Don’t we all?

quote:


The way we've chosen to account for the value of one's time is money, but it could just as easily be beads, credits, shells, or whatever.
 
 
Actually money is how government accounts for your value toward their goal.
 
Don’t panic. My idea would take a mass cohesion of the people, you know, the ones running the wheel; and it must be done willingly. As in they decide it is in their best interests.
 
I’m not holding my breath.
 
k
 
Edited to say; I have no idea how I managed to mess the quotes up so much. 




QuietlySeeking -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 7:58:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

All I can say is you are a capitalist's wet dream.

Well, you are a socialist's wet dream.

At least someone gets wet for each of us!

EDIT: Corrected the quotes.




meatcleaver -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 8:00:34 AM)

Only a good capitalist can spend his life chasing material wealth and then talk about reality being some ethereal state of mind.

We all know that most capitalists purport to believe in god, if for no other reason they can tell the poor redemption is through god and in the next world and not in this world and through the capitalist's exploited wealth.




meatcleaver -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 8:03:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

All I can say is you are a capitalist's wet dream.

Well, you are a socialist's wet dream.

At least someone gets wet for each of us!

EDIT: Corrected the quotes.


If you had read what I have written you would know I'm not a socialist. Wanting to get rid of poverty is not the preserve of the ideological, it is a sound human virtue and criticzing the material nature of the society I live in is also not a socialist position.

(I'm assuming you mean socialist in the ill informed and usual paranoid way in which rightwing Americans use the term. Why don't you rightwing Americans say what you mean. We all know you mean Stalinist, )




seeksfemslave -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 8:04:15 AM)

Kitten:
quote:

Camille: My father was the youngest of 17
quote:

KittenSol:If Camille is one of the youngest of a brood of seventeen

quote:

To cover her backside Kitten: says
For crying out loud, Seeks... do you remember the meaning of the word 'if'? Sheeesh
Seeks says Whats "if" got to do with it ? he he he he




missfrillypants -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 8:05:48 AM)

one of the things we really need is less people. they need to get some kind of way to keep people who are chronic welfare people from having babies to get another welfare check. that being said... my mother collects disability on a limited basis because she has a disease which keeps her from working more than about 20 hours a week at very low stress jobs when she's doing well. when she's not doing well, she cannot work at all. she pays her taxes, and before she got bad she worked from the day she was legally allowed to work. before that, she babysat. she raised two children by herself, not because she had them by herself but because her husband turned out to be an unsafe person to keep around his own children, and far to irresponsible to bother paying his child support payments since after his wife stopped picking up his slack he became a druggie who would rather spend the small amount of money on acid and other random drugs instead of on his children. and she and someone else she met eventually worked their way out of it, and even after he died she managed to stay worked out of it until the economy got so bad that the food pantry lines are turning people away in my community and now we're going to lose the house her dead second husband bought for her. what i mean to say is that  not everyone who takes money from the government is some kind of lazy demon.

the price of flour has more than tripled in the past year thanks to ethanol. the farmers who grew wheat are now growing corn because they can get so much for it from ethanol manufacturing plants that aren't actually all that efficient and so need a lot of corn to make a gallon. the bakery where i work is small and family owned, and even though the orange julius place in the mall sells our donuts at a double markup, our own customers get surly when we raise the price of something by ten cents. the ten or so people who depend on the bakery for their jobs are all just making it and could use some extra money. in my case a living wage increase seems like a great idea, but tina, who runs things and has to keep all her employees because she can't afford to let any go but can't afford to raise their wages either, doesn't agree. 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. not permenantly, but some kind of pump priming program to keep people's businesses from tanking because that wouldn't help either. i realize it would eventually take care of itself as the people got to spend more of their wages on things like fresh bread and coffeecakes but i worry about how we'd make it to that point, and i bet a lot of other small businesses have come on hard times also and the people involved would agree with me.




QuietlySeeking -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 8:09:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking

From the post above, I begin to realize that your ideology revolves around some fictitious "material needs" argument.  The reality is: each person's poverty is determined solely by their own view of their own world.  Your "material needs" argument revolves around the same thing (your view of your world).  Any world-view that opposes yours is wrong.
Have I finally got it?


Material needs are not fictitious, which is a strange suggestion coming from an obvious capitalist and capitalism being the most materialist of all materialist ideologies.

No, you cherry-picked the phrase...I've highlighted it above.

My contention with your "fictitious material need argument" is that depending upon the person, the "material needs" are different.  Until everyone has exactly the same expectation for an able-bodied working person's contribution and need, then there will be disparities, both in need and in contribution.  If there are disparities in need, then my original premise comes in....some people have more, some people have less.

If a doctor is paid the same as a ditch-digger, what is the point of spending 15 years in school/residency/fellowship for longer hours, higher stress, and more responsibility?

While anecdotes are useless to you, I know a nurse who quit nursing because she could go to work at Wal-Mart for $3 less per hour and not have the responsibility.  While she doesn't have the job satisfaction she once did, she can live comfortably on her new wages.




LaTigresse -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 8:09:31 AM)

I've been reading this thread off and on and decided to give my $2.00.

Some people here are aware that I spent the first 20+ years of my life living in poverty. I have very little formal education, was married at age 16 and a mother days after my 17th birthday. Then a single parent to two small ones, by the age of 24. Now I am in management and living comfortably middleclass.

I am also the oldest of six children born to two rather fucked up people, with several rather fucked up siblings.

I have often tried to understand where my life path turned down a different road than other members of my family, and others that began life similar to the way I did. In retrospect, it was a culmination of things. In large part, the influence of some remarkable people I've had the good fortune of knowing and learning from. The ability to read and reason. To observe and make decisions based upon the knowledge gleened.

Personally, I will always hold that, for the most part, people are poor, long term, by choice. Perhaps not concious choice, but still it is by choice. I believe that the biggest differences are self esteem and personal responsibility. If we feel we are less a person than someone that has more materially, we do not feel we deserve, therefor we self sabotage, afraid of failure. With that usually comes an, us against them, mindset. Which we use to absolve ourself of our own responsibility.

All too often, if we grow up poor, we feel we do not deserve therefor there is a certain sense of entitlement. Which tends to be a vicious circle of demanding the pity, government handout, whatever.......yet abusing them out of a sense of futility and entitlement..... Example: the person that uses foodstamps to buy groceries and uses the welfare check to buy a new television.

Also, when you are poor there is rarely a sense of money management education. So when you get a little extra, you haven't a CLUE how to handle it for long term results. Let alone go without the little luxuries for long term results much as our grandparents and those before them did. Now it is all about immediate gratification and to hell with tomorrow.

We have all probably read/heard/seen info on the curse of the Lottery. We've also seen sports stars and entertainment stars that ended up on poverty years after their career high point. Hearing that they had it all, then lost it all. Millions of dollars, gone. Sure, they were wealthy, but had no clue how to manage it, so lost it.

So in my eyes, there is a great deal more different about people that have/build material wealth and those destined to spend their lives in poverty. A combination of education about money management, the ability to sometimes sacrifice immediate gratification for long term results, and a personal biggie......personal responsibility. Taking responsibility for your own life, your own mistakes, your own education, your own sacrifices.

We have to quit using the excuse books and blaming "the man" because that is a lame cop out at best. My grandfather took no government subsidies, no welfare, nothing.......he worked, HARD. He pinched every penny. Every cent spent in that house was accounted for, kept in a ledger. My mother still laughs about him grumbling at the cost of shoelaces as he wrote them in his ledger. Yet, when he and my grandmother were in too poor of health to continue farming they were able to sell their farm, build a new house near my aunt and uncle and live quite well, considering where they began many years before.

So yes, some people will always be poor, no matter how much we throw at them. They quite simply refuse to know any other way. For whatever reason.

Understand, these concepts are based upon the opportunities available within the US.




Real0ne -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 8:18:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Level

quote:

ORIGINAL: cjan

I'd like to recommend a book by Bill Bradley that addresses all of the issues in this thread and more. The problems in society that we are discussing here are very complex and will be hard to solve. Bradley presents practical suggestions for addressing these problems. Things all citizens can do to effect a change. Bradley takes a balanced view, neither liberal nor conservative, simply pragmatic. I realize that many folks across the political spectrum are attached to their opinions. I admit I'm one of them. But I urge all interested sincere folks to read this book. Make the effort, it's worth it.

http://books.google.com/books?id=x_jtGQAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:Bill+inauthor:Bradley&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=1_2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_American_Story



Thanks for the link, Cjan, I'm a big fan of Bradley.


My pleasure, Level.  Unfortunately, probably very few, if any, will bother to borrow the book from their library and read it. One thing that saddens me is that, it seems, many people would rather engage in circle jerk political discussions that change nothing instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting involved in finding and working to apply solutions.Many say,"Well, make some practical suggestions for how we can improve things". Bradley does just that in this book.

As I said, Bradley's book is not about theoretical issues and solutions. It is full of figures and data and pragmatic solutions to these complex, yet solvable problems. That is, imo, the reason why his presidential campaign went nowhere. His ideas and suggestions are not "sexy". However, what Bradley suggests is resisted by many special interests, including his own political party. It makes me wonder how sincere people are, regarding wanting change, rather than maintaining the staus quo. I don't have any such doubt about the politicians and their masters in both parties. They prefer to keep blowing smoke up our collective ass and keep us divided in useless debate while they decide things for us.









   * Re-appoint Alan Greenspan as Federal Reserve chairman. (Aug 1999)

Yeh put the same guy back in who gave double digit inflation.

   * Political money eats away at fabric of democracy. (Aug 2000)

So what Bill, havent you heard; this is a republic

   * Make voter registration easier. (Aug 2000)

Yes we need those illegal immigrants voting

   * National gov’t needed to balance corruption of local gov’t. (Jan 1997)

Since when?

Thats why the constitution says every state is supposed to have a militia Bill, that the peoples duties.

   * Voted YES on Approving the presidential line-item veto. (Mar 1996)
   * Voted NO on banning more types of Congressional gifts. (Jul 1995)

Ah more power to the executive branch and more bribes to congress!

   *  Money determines gun laws instead of child safety. (Aug 2000)

Err hey Bill the constitution is supposed to do that.

   * Beating the NRA must come from concerted leadership. (Mar 2000)
   * Stand up to the NRA. (Sep 1999)

Yup nice shot at the heart of our constitution unconstitutional Bill.

   * Tough gun laws & tough leadership to stop child tragedies. (Mar 2000)
   * Ban Saturday Night Specials; plus other “common-sense”. (Aug 1999)

Yeh take em away Bill!

   * Gun control leads to safe schools. (Dec 1999)

Yes thats proven with how many massacres now Bill?

   *  Health care should assure Americans that they are cared for. (Aug 2000)

Yes remove the bush cap on suits and remove those who malpractice.

   * Mandatory insurance for children, at birth, federally paid. (Aug 2000)

Yes and the strings are what Bill?  What fed entitlement comes without WE CONTROL you now strings Bill?  Federalist commie.

   * Controlling smoking is key to health care reform. (Jan 2000)

Nice going Bill, I have a right to smoke if I want to in America.

   * All Americans should have access to affordable health care. (Dec 1999)
   * Universal health care & health insurance coverage. (Aug 1999)

Bill all americans shouold make enough money to afford health care you commie.

   * $650B over 10 yrs for children’s mandatory health insurance. (Oct 1999)

and how much stock do you own in insurance Bill?

   *  More immigration visas to fill labor needs. (Mar 2000)

What for Bill the borders are open?

   * Provide amnesty for immigrants who came before ‘82. (Mar 2000)

All of America want that dont they Bill?

   * Pro-immigrant: public assistance; school funds; less INS. (May 1996)

Yeh we can afford that!


   * Bradley’s “Fair Tax” was basis for Reagan’s 1986 Tax Reform. (Jan 1997)

shhhwoooosh!  Thats sound of the money going upward to the wealthy with your fair tax Bill.






meatcleaver -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 8:19:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking

From the post above, I begin to realize that your ideology revolves around some fictitious "material needs" argument.  The reality is: each person's poverty is determined solely by their own view of their own world.  Your "material needs" argument revolves around the same thing (your view of your world).  Any world-view that opposes yours is wrong.
Have I finally got it?


Material needs are not fictitious, which is a strange suggestion coming from an obvious capitalist and capitalism being the most materialist of all materialist ideologies.

No, you cherry-picked the phrase...I've highlighted it above.

My contention with your "fictitious material need argument" is that depending upon the person, the "material needs" are different.  Until everyone has exactly the same expectation for an able-bodied working person's contribution and need, then there will be disparities, both in need and in contribution.  If there are disparities in need, then my original premise comes in....some people have more, some people have less.

If a doctor is paid the same as a ditch-digger, what is the point of spending 15 years in school/residency/fellowship for longer hours, higher stress, and more responsibility?

While anecdotes are useless to you, I know a nurse who quit nursing because she could go to work at Wal-Mart for $3 less per hour and not have the responsibility.  While she doesn't have the job satisfaction she once did, she can live comfortably on her new wages.



You are putting words into my mouth. Getting rid of poverty doesn't require everyone being paid the same, it requires everyone having enough for their basic material needs (food, clothes and home), a good quality education and good quality of health care. My argument is that capitalism requires some people to be without basic needs and others fearful that they too could end up in poverty with decent health, education and basic material needs. The fear is to get people up every morning and work for monkey nuts to make the rich richer.

Yes, this goal is achievable but capitalists don't want to achieve it.




QuietlySeeking -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 8:19:44 AM)

<sarcasm>
LaT, you are now part of the Deluded Capitalist Conspiracy to Keep Poor People Poor (DCC-KPPP).

Here is your button and your membership card.
If we ever meet, I'll teach you the secret handshake.
</sarcasm>




LaTigresse -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 8:22:57 AM)

AWSOME!!! 




meatcleaver -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 8:25:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: QuietlySeeking

<sarcasm>
LaT, you are now part of the Deluded Capitalist Conspiracy to Keep Poor People Poor (DCC-KPPP).

Here is your button and your membership card.
If we ever meet, I'll teach you the secret handshake.
</sarcasm>



Why has the richest country in the world got 40 million people without healthcare. Why has the richest country in the world got people living on food stamps? Why has the richest country in the world got people living in tents?

Not through lack of money because the US can afford to give the rich tax cuts and spend trillions on imperial jollies where the poor are the canon fodder and the rich make a financial killing, all thanks to the charitable president.

Then you make jibs about a deluded capitalist conspiracy. Boy, they have you hook, line and sinker.




Real0ne -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 8:28:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

I've been reading this thread off and on and decided to give my $2.00.



While you make several good points you did not factor in the criminal elements and that is those who control the value of your money.

Well I guess maybe you did sorta, inflation raised it to $2.00 now days ;)








LaTigresse -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 8:40:12 AM)

I believe that welfare was both, one of the best things that ever happened to this country, and also one of the worst.




QuietlySeeking -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 8:47:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Why has the richest country in the world got 40 million people without healthcare. Why has the richest country in the world got people living on food stamps? Why has the richest country in the world got people living in tents?

Not through lack of money because the US can afford to give the rich tax cuts and spend trillions on imperial jollies where the poor are the canon fodder and the rich make a financial killing, all thanks to the charitable president.


The United States is far from perfect. 

We spend far more on helping other countries bail out the poor, the sick, the injured than we spend helping our own people do the same. 

Perhaps rather than sending aid and troops when there is a tsunami/earthquake/natural disaster elsewhere in the world, we should just stay home. 
Perhaps rather than attempting to help the Somali navy stop the pirates in International Waters, we should stay home. 
Perhaps rather than sending the Red Cross and other aid agencies who derive large contributions from the US goverment to combat AIDS, communicable diseases, birth defects world-wide...
Perhaps rather than trying to take care of the world, we should close our borders to ALL immigration and expel anyone who isn't a naturalized citizen or born here.

Even if we did all that and spent all that money domestically, the US would still have people on foodstamps, people without insurance (notice I didn't say without healthcare), and people living in tents. 

What you fail to realize is that some of those people choose to be there and would refuse the help.  Some people in this country refuse to be helped because they would rather be "poor" than  have their bills paid by the aid programs.  It's called Pride and while I don't agree with the decision to refuse help, it's not my decision to make.




QuietlySeeking -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 8:50:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: meatcleaver

Not through lack of money because the US can afford to give the rich tax cuts and spend trillions on imperial jollies where the poor are the canon fodder and the rich make a financial killing, all thanks to the charitable president.


A President who was duly elected... 
An opposing party Legislature who was duly elected...and still passed the "rich" tax cuts?

Whether or not you like the outcome, it appears that the majority voice of the people in the United States (who bothered to vote) has been heard.




camille65 -> RE: The sting of poverty (4/15/2008 9:15:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Camille, can you really mean your FATHER worked in a mine at 6 years of age ?
 Yes.




Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125