quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Merry Christmas and dont forget to vote for me !

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

I do understand that, but my point was more along the lines of, if you are looking for bad news, that is what you are going to find.  How about links from respected bodies comparing standards of living... education levels, income per capita, longevity, employment opportunities, available medical care, cultural resources... I don't think the picture is as bleak when you look at both the bad and the good.

In some respects this is a fair point. The US is a nation of unparalleled wealth. The problem is you're a nation of an unparalleled wealth gap too (in the developed world). Thus, if you're from a certain background life must be materially very rewarding. The above measures you mention, do these apply to the poorer socio-economic groups in the US? I doubt these measures are of much comfort. I certainly take your point though that the US has a middle-class that other nations do not come close to and for the majority life must be materially grand.

I suppose it wholly depends on your perspective and what you consider materialistically rewarding.  The following is a brief excerpt from an article on the results of the 2002 US Census:

quote:

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

While I know there are some individuals who are truly needy, I happen to think that the statement, "most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago" is fairly accurate.

You can read the entire article here.  Another article here.  If you're brave, you can even visit the US Census Bureau's website and take a look at the data yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Without pursuing this one more than it needs to be I am/was saying that this is personal to your particular social environment as opposed to US society in general.

To be equally fair so that you understand the position from which I'm speaking, my social environment is pretty average for Americans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

There's a big problem here because in Britain we have 3 political parties who you couldn't slide a piece of paper between - their policies are that similar. They know this and as a result spend their time demonising the other two rather than talking up their own policies. Apathy has set in, people no longer hold any sort of faith in politicians. The two party system in your country, it's going to take a lot to turn it around just as it will do here. That lot is the economy, people are apathetic while everything is rosy in the garden but when there is a downturn in the economy people will want quick answers and suddenly become interested again. My fear for Britain is that a far-right party will fill the void vacated by left-wing politicians who have traditionally represented the working man.

I agree that apathy is a problem, but I honestly don't know what can be done about that, if anything.  But I don't believe it's something that can be governed.

*sighs*  Edited to fix quotations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

FR

Funny how words are redefined to suit those with power.

I find the whole premise of this thread amusing since the World Bank has done nothing but indebt the Third World. I refer anyone who cares to learn about the damage the World Bank has done to peruse these links.. and BTW, I would not take what the World Bank says about the global economy as gospel, they have sold more than one struggling country a lemon in the form of  loans they knew those people could never pay back to line the pockets of companies in rich countries... what a racket....

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Merry Christmas and dont forget to vote for me !

seeks, aren't you being wildly optimistic here? Aren't you forgetting you have to run for something to receive votes? This is similar to a person proclaiming loudly that he/she is going to fly to the moon but conveniently forgetting he/she is not an astronaut.

To be honest seeks I've become completely and utterly disillusioned with the whole democratic process. However, if you tell  me where you're running and the party you will be representing I will consider it a worthwhile venture to cast a vote for any one of the opposing candidates.

Merry Christmas seeks and all the very best of British!

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
As far as I can see some form of Federal system is about as good as you are going to get, with the Federal arm doing as little as possible and as much power as can be devolved down to local communities.

Merry Christmas and dont forget to vote for me !

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

losttreasure, I'll come back to this one tomorrow - too late here for me to be talking sense!

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

losttreasure, I'll come back to this one tomorrow - too late here for me to be talking sense!

Happy Christmas!  [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

There has never been an audit of the Fed Reserve

If you added up all the personal, city, county, state, business and federal government debt  the price tag would be so astronomical that there is no real dollar measure that I can find to represent this number. We do not have enough productivity or assets to make this accumulated debt pencil out in a few generations.

Fact: monies for infrastructure are mostly patching what already exists instead of building something new. We are not building state of the art transit systems, or investing in a future without petrol.

To me nothing says freedom more than not owing people. I try very hard not to get into debt. I believe that true freedom is being able to decide where I want to work and live without worrying about losing everything.

"Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose"

It has a ring of truth... perhaps the Third World is richer than we are in some ways.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitchMistress4
Not that a Capitalist ever does any.)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTRsubNW

quote:

ORIGINAL: BitchMistress4
Not that a Capitalist ever does any.)

Au Contraire...nevertheless....here's what (everyone) should truly be worried about:

http://channels.isp.netscape.com/pf/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1333&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20061224%2F1413343017.htm&sc=1333&floc=NI-mo3

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Thanks for the answer Meat.  I disgree with you on the Macro level.  I think stopping Hitler shows that Armies do more than rampage for Corparations and profit.  And it was the USA pumping Bullets and Food to the Soviets and England. 
I believe I have mentioned this before.  The U.S. was a minor player in WWII.  I cited for reference that the German casualities just in the battle for Moscow were greater than all the casualities of the U.S. army for the whole war.  The belief that U.S. supplies saved Russia is not born out by the facts.  The facts are that the U.S. supplied less than 10% of the material that the Russians used durring the war.
(An unrelated sidelite to the above is that Russia supplied 100% of the titanium used in the SR71 Blackbird)
 
I would also say that if it were not for the Monroe Doctrine(under which a lot of attrocious violence was committed) Latin America would look a lot like Africa, with rampaging disease, war, and genocide. 
Back in the West.  All of those issues seem to be you wanting the freedom to impose on others, which goes along with your idea of Islamic radicals wanting Freedom to commit violent Jihad.  The KKK wanted the Freedom to impose an ethnic/religous dictatorship also, but I am sure we both agree that that the KKK are NOT freedom fighters.  Who would decide what advertising is shitty?  Would there also be a censor for art?  For literature?  For song?  For Ideas?( though that exists in some of Europe)Do you intend to not use products from the Corparations?  Services and goods like air travel, advanced health care, intelectualism, and art galleries (if you use them your life will be molded by them) require a complex society that produces surpluses.  If everyone only worked to feed them selves, everyone would have to produce food all the time, there would be no specialisation.  Forcing you to pay taxes does more than just support the millitary, it also supports schools, hospitals, health care, old age pensions,ect.  In my opinion Capitalism produces the most surplus, allowing the existance of higher culture.  I see the Market as a goose that lays eggs of Gold, but we have to make sure the goose doesn't shit in the cistern, drink poison, or bite the kids.  The biggest problem is that people are not educated consumers, the market gives us what we want.  Not what we say we want, but what we actually choose...
When the coffee producers decided to keep the same 1 pound, 2pound and 3 pound cans but put less coffee in them I do not remember being asked...they just appeared on the shelves and I had the choice of buying this or that brand of coffee in a one pound can that only had 13 ounces in it.
When the ice cream producers decided to make a half gallon of ice cream 56 ounces the only choice I was offered was flavor and brand.  I did happen to notice that the price was not lowered to reflect the lowered content.
I cite these two examples but a trip to any grocery store will make you aware of many things that used to come in standard sizes now have different standards.


This leads to a discussion of whether freedom actually works(can people handle it), and if not....then what?   Would  that mean the old Popes were right to kill the early scientists?  
I want to give KUDOS to Thomsonx, You have a lot more of the Plans I want for my home/existance, already active.
Please feel free to contact me on the other side for any questions on the "nuts and bolts of my approach to self sufficiency"
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

I do understand that, but my point was more along the lines of, if you are looking for bad news, that is what you are going to find.  How about links from respected bodies comparing standards of living... education levels, income per capita, longevity, employment opportunities, available medical care, cultural resources... I don't think the picture is as bleak when you look at both the bad and the good.

In some respects this is a fair point. The US is a nation of unparalleled wealth. The problem is you're a nation of an unparalleled wealth gap too (in the developed world). Thus, if you're from a certain background life must be materially very rewarding. The above measures you mention, do these apply to the poorer socio-economic groups in the US? I doubt these measures are of much comfort. I certainly take your point though that the US has a middle-class that other nations do not come close to and for the majority life must be materially grand.

I suppose it wholly depends on your perspective and what you consider materialistically rewarding.  The following is a brief excerpt from an article on the results of the 2002 US Census:

quote:

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
If you are paying a mortgage you do not own the house the holder of the first trust deed owns the house.
* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Wallmart sells airconditioners for about $100 which translates to about two days wages at minimum wage.  Thirty years ago air conditioners were made in the U.S. with free labor.  Today they are manufactured off shore by what many would charactize as slave labor.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
A one bedroom appartment for two people has a kitchen a living room and a bathroom .  Two rooms per person not exactly living under a bridge but hardly living large.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Does the average poor American have more living space than the average not poor American might be a better question.
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Is that car a $20,000 chevy or a 20 year old pos?
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Not aware of any current manufacturer of black and white televisions.   Walmart sells color televisions for about $100 which is less than two days wages at minimum wage.  Which makes it cheaper  source of news than a daily newspaper.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
I thought I was the only dinosaur that still used a vcr.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As stated above more very inexpensive items manufactured by what many might see as slave labor.

While I know there are some individuals who are truly needy, I happen to think that the statement, "most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago" is fairly accurate.
These material conditions do not cost today what they cost a few gernerations ago because they are not produced by free labor.  The poor are still poor and the rich are richer.
thompson


You can read the entire article here.  Another article here.  If you're brave, you can even visit the US Census Bureau's website and take a look at the data yourself.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Without pursuing this one more than it needs to be I am/was saying that this is personal to your particular social environment as opposed to US society in general.

To be equally fair so that you understand the position from which I'm speaking, my social environment is pretty average for Americans.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

There's a big problem here because in Britain we have 3 political parties who you couldn't slide a piece of paper between - their policies are that similar. They know this and as a result spend their time demonising the other two rather than talking up their own policies. Apathy has set in, people no longer hold any sort of faith in politicians. The two party system in your country, it's going to take a lot to turn it around just as it will do here. That lot is the economy, people are apathetic while everything is rosy in the garden but when there is a downturn in the economy people will want quick answers and suddenly become interested again. My fear for Britain is that a far-right party will fill the void vacated by left-wing politicians who have traditionally represented the working man.

I agree that apathy is a problem, but I honestly don't know what can be done about that, if anything.  But I don't believe it's something that can be governed.

*sighs*  Edited to fix quotations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

i look at this from the bright side.   Since the federal reserve, (a publicaly owned capitalist company), is already fleecing us, a first world country there is little room for the world bank to get much!  LOL

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

There has never been an audit of the Fed Reserve

quote:

ORIGINAL: subfever

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

There has never been an audit of the Fed Reserve

Actually, there has been. However, there's never been a full audit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

I suppose it wholly depends on your perspective and what you consider materialistically rewarding.  The following is a brief excerpt from an article on the results of the 2002 US Census:

quote:

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Having a roof over your head is the bare minimum requirement for being on this earth. It is hardly major strides in civilisation. As a point aside, many European countries do not have a culture of home owning. They tend to rent out of convenience.

* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

So while the rich have accumulated a few more jets and yachts the poor have accumulated air conditioning. Jesus Christ, I can understand beer and football being the opium of the masses but air conditioning? You lot must be easily swayed over there :-)

* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

You mention London, I can tell you from experience that a £300,000 house in London can be half the size of a Government provided (i.e. free) house in North East England. It is all about demand on the housing stock and you are not comparing like with like because whereas you have a lot of space out there we have a building on pretty much every blade of grass. The telling point is that while those who pay £300k+ for a house in London can afford to holiday around the world, eat out regularly at quality restauraunts, cluds/bars etc can the poor in the US?

* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

You can get a car in Britain for a hundred quid i.e. the same cost as a decent night out. Many unemployed in Britain own their own car.

* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Same with a TV, you can pick one up for 50 quid ($80ish) bottom of the range and unless you're homeless anyone can afford to own one in Britain. The unemployed included.

* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Please see above. DVD players can be picked up for 20 quid.

* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As above.

While I know there are some individuals who are truly needy, I happen to think that the statement, "most of America's "poor" live in material conditions that would be judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago" is fairly accurate.

A much better way of looking at this question is to ask how much disposable income the US poor have after they have bought their home and cheap consumer goods. The reason being, sitting in the house night after night watching rubbish on television is not much of a life, it is barely a subsistence.