General discussion
-
CreatorTopic
-
February 21, 2009 at 3:05 pm #2168312
[i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
Lockedby maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
[i]…..half the people make less than the mean income.[/i]
– Quote from an unknown sourceInteresting to think about.
President Johnson’s [i]War on Poverty[/i], in my opinion, needs an exit strategy. What should it be?
Can government eliminate poverty? If so, how? If not, why try?
Has the definition of [i]poverty[/i] changed over time?
How do you define [i]poverty[/i], in abject terms or relative terms?
Is the aforementioned [i]War on Poverty[/i] waged against abject poverty or relative poverty? If the answer is [i]relative poverty[/i], is waging it an effort in futility? And if the answer is [i]abject poverty[/i], how much of that would really exist in our country (or your country) if left to its own accord?
And finally, is the goal of assisting those living in poverty best left to the private sector to address, or is government involvement more effective? Is it better addressed on larger scales or smaller?
Topic is locked -
CreatorTopic
All Comments
-
AuthorReplies
-
-
February 21, 2009 at 5:17 pm #2765448
Half the people make less than the mean income?
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
I’d want to remain unknown if I said something as dumb as that as well.
The only way for that not to be true, is either everyone has the same income, or to make abject poverty a requirement.
Take it off the highest earners or the lowest….
Guy was banker wasn’t he, access to a lot of numbers, can’t do basic applied math though.
-
February 21, 2009 at 5:49 pm #2765442
Outliers
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Half the people make less than the mean income?
when you look at some that make so much, and then look at almost half our nation that pay zero in income taxes……
It is little wonder the Obama supporters don’t care about taxes going up, because it won’t be effecting THEM.
-
February 21, 2009 at 6:17 pm #2765434
On [i]paying income taxes[/i]
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Outliers
When it comes to matters of deciding what to do in regards to those who [i]pay income taxes[/i], should those who [i]pay NO income taxes[/i] have a voice? Why or why not?
-
February 21, 2009 at 9:17 pm #2765416
Max
by santeewelding · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to On [i]paying income taxes[/i]
Are you asking about taxes, or voice?
Voice determines anything, including voice. Taxes determine only voice.
And then there appears your other option: that bit about “matters of deciding”. Who be this? Somebody else?
-
February 22, 2009 at 8:43 am #2765353
Depends
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to On [i]paying income taxes[/i]
Are you takling about those who don’t earn enough to cover the cost of collecting it, or those who earn so much, they can twidlle with the figures and make it look like they shouldn’t ?
Going back to the old days, where you had to have a certain income to vote seems like a really bad idea.
I prefer every one to vote, for that vote to mean something, and a constitutional cap, requiring an almost unamimous majority across all houses, in order to adjust it upwards.
Not just income tax, either, the lot. Government will never be small out of choice, so lets take the power to fund more away from them. I guarantee in that environment, they wouldn’t be launching ‘new’ programs left, right and centre. -
February 23, 2009 at 4:02 pm #2764138
I agree with that, but
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Depends
[i]Going back to the old days, where you had to have a certain income to vote seems like a really bad idea.[/i]
An intelligence test would be nice 🙂
-
February 23, 2009 at 6:02 am #2768868
Yes,
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to On [i]paying income taxes[/i]
because they ARE paying them… A large part of the wealthiest in this country are wealthy because they make something they sell to others. The money they make (and the taxes they pay) ultimately come from the consumers.
Now, I think that if the average consumer actually [b]understood[/b] this, they might vote differently, but they shouldn’t be deprived of the vote.
The same argument is often levied against renters voting for property tax increases… Unless the landlord is a complete idiot, he includes the cost of taxes in what he charges for rent, so the renter is actually paying the property tax.
-
February 24, 2009 at 12:02 pm #2764417
In Germany…
by john.a.wills · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Yes,
by law the rent must include the property tax. Each year the renter gets a statement of where his rent went: heating, taxes, what-have-you.
In Britain the renter gets to pay the property tax himself (this may have changed in recent years, I haven’t kept up, and there have been some changes in local taxation). -
February 24, 2009 at 12:10 pm #2764413
I wonder how that works
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to In Germany…
[i]In Britain the renter gets to pay the property tax himself (this may have changed in recent years, I haven’t kept up, and there have been some changes in local taxation).[/i]
In multi-family multi-sized dwellings. Would each unit have to be individually appraised (two, three, and four bedroom) separately?
-
February 25, 2009 at 3:45 am #2765175
Yes, Tony
by neilb@uk · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I wonder how that works
The Council Tax is on the basis of “banding” of properties which was originally done on the basis of relative market value within the tax authority area – city, county, whatever.
The TAx is worked out as a basic figure to start with and then it is modified according to a ratio to place the burden of taxation on more larger – presumably more expensive properties. So if you’re in a band A property, you pay two thirds of the base figure, whereas in you’re in a Band H property, you pay twice this figure. There are discounts on single occupancy (25%) or second homes (50%).
The original banding was done by Estate Agents (real estate brokers) and is a bit general and there has been gradual adjustment and fine-tuning over the years that we’ve been paying.
Once we stopped eating woolly mammoth and took up farming, it was inevitable that we got a ruling class and a priesthood, then an aristocracy and – like it or not – government. For most of our history the process of feeding and paying for the government and its services (whether we want them or not, whether we need them or not) has largely consisted of a bloke on a horse arriving at your hut and nicking your stuff or cutting bits off your body, subject to status.
Not a lot has changed, then.
Neil 🙂
-
February 25, 2009 at 7:10 am #2765072
-
February 25, 2009 at 8:59 pm #2762994
yes, each flat distinctly
by john.a.wills · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I wonder how that works
My aunt in Glasgow lived in a building with 40+ residences and she got her own bill for the rates, i.e. for property tax, based on the fair rentable value of the place. I think the rates have now been replaced by something called council tax, which works differently but is still done by each residence. In Englandandwales the local tax (also called council tax?) is based on property values, but in bands, not the exact assessed value in pounds. When the present system was introduced some people complained mightily about being undervalued – they would rather pay more tax than be in a lower band. They wanted to be able to say something like “Most of the houses around here are in bands A and B, you know.”.
-
-
February 21, 2009 at 6:15 pm #2765436
Was it really “dumb”. . . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Half the people make less than the mean income?
…..or thought provoking?
P.S. When coupled with the question, abject or relative, it speaks volumes. Don’t you think?
P.P.S. You said, [i]”…..The only way for that not to be true…..”[/i]
Exactly correct. Therefore what? Therefore, what’s the REAL motive?
-
February 22, 2009 at 3:56 am #2765380
Well It provoked a thought or two
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Was it really “dumb”. . . . . .
Mathematical incompetence?
Total loss of contact with reality.
Pseudo scientific lie?Abject is a merely a point on the scale. It’s as arbritary as a temperature scale.
Are you hotter or colder if you measure your temperature relative to the point where water or alcohol freezes?
Motive?
Well if you are poor, the motive is not to be. Of course the fact that you are poor limits your ability not to be…
Philanthropism, guilt, pure and simple. To be successful at though, you have to be rich…
Greed. Why would a greedy person want a war on poverty?. To make money out of it…
The war on poverty is bollocks.
The only way not to lose it, is not to fight it.
-
February 22, 2009 at 4:07 am #2765378
Tony,
by dhcdbd · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Well It provoked a thought or two
I am not sure if there is a language problem in the use of the word “Bollocks.”
When I looked the word up it meant 1) of the testicles and 2) rubbish. But those are the American definitions. English English being different than American English, can you explain how you meant the word? I understood it to mean “Rubbish” in context.
-
February 22, 2009 at 8:32 am #2765355
The war on poverty is
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Tony,
testicles. 😀
I guess if I was to say that, it would mean I wanted to indicate rubbish when my mum was present. :p
-
February 22, 2009 at 9:03 am #2765348
She
by santeewelding · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The war on poverty is
Must be one of the excepted PTB that Max obliquely alludes to in his screwed-up tax scheme. I got one, too.
-
February 22, 2009 at 9:40 am #2765342
Here’s an example of a [i]screwed-up tax scheme
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to She
-
February 22, 2009 at 9:50 am #2765341
I quite agree
by santeewelding · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to She
I also agree with your effort to bring fundamental order and reason to a clusterfuck.
The scheme you dally with, however, is not it. I think you need to go more in the direction of “voice”, which would then plunge you into the clusterfuck of who and how we each and all are.
ed: extraneous “l”
-
February 22, 2009 at 10:49 am #2765332
[i]. . . . .The scheme I dally with. . . . .?
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to She
Which is what?
-
February 22, 2009 at 10:58 am #2765328
The preposteri one
by santeewelding · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to She
Of franchise to voice.
I said “dally” in deference to your having dallied and not formally proposed same.
-
February 22, 2009 at 11:24 am #2765325
What I believe
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to She
I could elaborate on any of the following points, but in a nutshell:
I believe every citizen should have a voice, regardless of that person’s standing on the economic or social scale.
I believe it’s both immoral and a recipe for disaster (or tyranny) for a system that allows one citizen to vote himself the earnings of another citizen; it’s tantamount to both economic slavery and the purchasing of votes (purchasing with another’s dollar, I might add).
I believe it’s immoral to tax a person’s earnings; that, too, is tantamount to economic slavery.
I believe it’s the role of government to guarantee a society in which people are free to take responsibility for themselves, and have the individual right to seek opportunity and happiness for themselves, regardless of how they choose to define that desired outcome; it’s not, however, the role of government to guarantee the realization of that outcome or to equalize outcome among the citizenry.
Benevolence is not the role of government. ([i] I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.[/i] – James Madison)
I believe the capitalistic system is not perfect, and those higher on the economic and social scale have an advantage over others, and often-times take advantage of others; call it an evil unintended consequence of the system. However, the way to address that evil is not with another evil, as I described in the aforementioned points.
I believe taxes are necessary and vital to maintain a fully functioning government.
I could go on, but my conclusion:
If one generally believes, in principle, either fully or in part, with the points I’ve made, then when it comes to the question of taxation and how to collect the vital revenue for government to function, then one might conclude that a tax based on consumption, not income, is the preferred method. The details of how a consumption-based tax should be structured should only be debated and discussed after the underlying premise is agreed upon.
If that’s, as you suggested, the basis for a [i]screwed-up tax scheme[/i], then so be it. However, it’s better, in the eyes of many (including, most likely, our founders), than the [i]screwed-up tax scheme[/i] we currently have to endure.
-
February 22, 2009 at 11:28 am #2765322
Max.
by boxfiddler · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to She
[i]I believe it?s immoral to tax a person?s earnings; that, too, is tantamount to economic slavery.[/i]
[i]I believe taxes are necessary and vital to maintain a fully functioning government[/i]
A little cognitive dissonance here, or would you care to expand on ‘taxes’ in the second quote?
-
February 22, 2009 at 11:31 am #2765319
Boxy – I did expand on it. . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to She
…..in my conclusion.
Taxes defined: The means by which government collects revenue (not necessarily by taking a portion of one’s income).
-
February 22, 2009 at 11:33 am #2765318
-
February 22, 2009 at 11:37 am #2765317
Boxy – I understand. . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to She
My brain has leaked from my ears on occasion as well.
-
February 22, 2009 at 1:35 pm #2765302
Re: Screwed Up Tax Scheme
by thechas · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to She
Is the US income tax code overly cumbersome, complex and far to large? Yes.
Is it fundamentally screwed up? No.
The problem with the US income tax code is much the same as any part of the US legal code. Congress does a poor job at writing legislation with clear and concise language.
The portions of the US tax code that most individuals deal with are actually pretty simple and straightforward. If the tax code was reduced to what was required for 90% of individual taxpayers, the code code be smaller than an encyclopedia volume.
What makes the US tax code the complex entity it is is the tax breaks that members of Congress insert to aid a company or investor back home. It takes a lot of words to write a tax break that is so narrow that only 1 specific company could take advantage of it. But, no representative would write a law that gives a tax break to a specific company.
True, there is some social engineering in some of the deductions and credits.
Perhaps the worst feature of the US tax code is that a shrewd tax lawyer can help anyone with enough money to significantly reduce or eliminate their income tax. However, even that is more of a statement than a savings. The amount of money an individual needs to spend in just the right way to reduce their income tax rate almost always exceeds the total savings. The primary exception being when one is near a step in the tax brackets and can lower their taxable income to the lower bracket.
Even the churn that takes place when an individual spends money to lower their taxes accomplishes the intended purpose of the tax break. It gets money moving in the economy.
Any of the simplified tax plans will not eliminate social engineering in the tax code. A number of states have different sales tax rates for different items. Others have sales tax holidays such as late summer back to school tax holidays for cloths and related items.
Mankind has a built in penchant to meddle with just about anything. The simpler you try to make something, the more effort someone else will work to add “features” to it.
Chas
-
February 22, 2009 at 5:47 pm #2765267
I have heard this referred to as a “Gift Society”
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to She
There are ways you can gain control over a population.
One, as in Cuba, use the army.
Two, as in the US, promise to give something to someone in exchange for votes and a blank check.
When over 40% of our nation pays zero in income taxes, telling them you wish to keep taxes low is not going to gain you any votes. Telling them you are going to raise taxes on “the rich” and “big business” so you can fund social programs does get their vote.
Class warfare and class envy are powerful tools, and Obama is taking full advantage of both.
-
February 22, 2009 at 9:25 am #2765345
Just trying to understand the idiom.
by dhcdbd · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The war on poverty is
You might have meant something other than how I read it.
-
February 23, 2009 at 6:07 am #2768865
How…
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Well It provoked a thought or two
[i]Well if you are poor, the motive is not to be. [/i]
do you know if you are poor? By comparing yourself to someone else? Why would you seek to make such a comparison?
Or is the label imposed from the outside?
-
February 23, 2009 at 9:15 am #2768782
Dunno
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to How…
When I was poor as a child (not abject, but very few luxuries available).
Did I compare myself with my more affluent fellow pupils, you bet your arse.
I didn’t consider my self poor, I just thought my parents were a bit tight. :pNow I know a bit more, I’ve managed to be not poor, relatively affluent in fact. A major driver was not having my kid’s look at me when little Billy went past on his brand new bycycle. Must have hurt my Da, that.
How do you know poor now?. Simple go to the supermarket, watch the poor tw@t filling up a small basket with own brand nasty cheap food, and telling their children the good stuff is bad for them.
Watch them near the checkout, when little Billy is getting snickers bar, and they get to pick two sweets out of a bulk buy bag of ‘just like Haribo’
It’s in your face all the time now, you can’t avoid knowing there’s something you can’t afford.
There’s big difference between that being a Lamborghini, with a jaw droppingly attractive brunette in it, and a loaf of bread that doesn’t taste like floor sweepings. -
February 23, 2009 at 10:58 am #2768731
So the definition of poverty
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Dunno
should be “Not being able to afford what you want”?
Or is it “Not being able to afford what someone else thinks you should want”?
Or, in essence…
Is it possible to be in poverty and not know it?
-
February 23, 2009 at 12:12 pm #2768686
Of course not being able to afford
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to So the definition of poverty
what you want is poverty.
what you need is abject poverty.People have different wants and needs so what’s the point of picking some number ot of hat, and saying this is poverty?
As far as I can see it’s so you can isolate a mass of voters, promise them something you think they should want and then stick your face well deep in thr trough when the poor fools believe you.
-
February 23, 2009 at 1:36 pm #2764215
Agreed,
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to So the definition of poverty
[i]People have different wants and needs so what’s the point of picking some number ot of hat, and saying this is poverty?[/i]
Yet that’s exactly what our government does… and they don’t even take into account regional or local cost of living differences!
-
-
-
February 21, 2009 at 6:50 pm #2765432
What is most interesting (or most scary) to me…
by nicknielsen · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
The statement implies that the speaker believes poverty=making less than the mean income. Such an attitude reveals a deep misunderstanding not only of arithmetic, but of economics.
Would I be surprised to discover the speaker is also a proponent of wealth redistribution? No. Would I trust the speaker in the US government? No. Would I be surprised to find the speaker has been or is in the US government. No.
-
February 21, 2009 at 6:55 pm #2765431
There will always be poverty as long as,
by dhcdbd · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
wealth is based on scarcity. Eliminate scarcity and eliminate poverty.
But what to replace a scarcity based economy with? The rich would not then get richer.
-
February 21, 2009 at 7:27 pm #2765426
Remove money
by boxfiddler · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to There will always be poverty as long as,
as a means of exhcange, and as a means of value.
As long as a ‘third party’, so to speak, stands for value, poverty will be an issue.
If people are valued, poverty becomes somewhat different from what we currently understand it to be.
Furthermore, poverty is a cyclical, naturally occurring phenomenon under any understanding other than that of a money based understanding.
One of my personal diatribes that could rage interminably…
Whacked out value system.-
February 22, 2009 at 9:36 am #2765343
I thought you were going to say, remove money. . . .
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Remove money
…..from government, at least as it pertains to the ability of one citizen to vote himself payment at the expense of another.
-
-
-
February 21, 2009 at 7:07 pm #2765429
People have been sold a bill of goods as to what poverty is
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
We don’t think of starving people somewhere in the world as poverty, but someone that can’t afford a third or fourth car.
We see people that are “poor” with a cell phone pasted to their face. How? Cell phone in one hand, cigarette in the other. Over 3k a year blown on cigs and cell phone, sounds like a money management problem, not a cash shortage.
How many “poor” people do you know that DON’T have cable TV and multiple tv’s in their home?
There used to be hard working people in this world that did not have their worth measured by how much money they had or the size of their house, but on the character of the person and the way they lived their lives. Proud, hard working people that made ends meet. Now, if you are “poor”, it is “unfair” and “the government” should do something about it.
The world is moving backwards (devolving) rather than improving and moving forward.
-
February 22, 2009 at 4:05 am #2765379
It’s now becoming entirely obvious
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to People have been sold a bill of goods as to what poverty is
that resources are finite. The only way to keep getting yours, is to convince as many others as you can that it isn’t theirs.
We can stave off collapse by going into space, then becoming interstellar, then intergalactic, then we fill up the universe and die in our own waste products.
To win the war on poverty we must trancend our biology, but then we would be something else, so did we win? :p
-
February 22, 2009 at 5:31 am #2765376
what to do…
by infraguru · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It’s now becoming entirely obvious
better not.
-
February 22, 2009 at 5:49 pm #2765266
not quite
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It’s now becoming entirely obvious
The world is not setup so that in order for one to be successful, another has to fail.
Based upon your statement, do we have to limit how much money someone is ALLOWED to make?
-
February 23, 2009 at 4:54 am #2768900
Oh please
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to not quite
Which one of these statements is false.
The amount of reource we can efficientky convert in to that which we need to live , is finite.
There are more of us everyday.
The system itself will provide the limit.
One day one of us will have the last piece of available food, the other will have a gazillion dollars. Bon appetit.
-
February 23, 2009 at 11:30 am #2768710
But there ARE a lot of people….
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to not quite
[i]The world is not setup so that in order for one to be successful, another has to fail.[/i]
who, unfortunately, have been convinced that it is, and operate under that assumption…
-
February 23, 2009 at 6:58 pm #2764101
And snivel about how “unfair” it is
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to But there ARE a lot of people….
“it isn’t FAIR that you have so much while this other person has so little”….
Of course we don’t hear how it isn’t “fair” that the person with “so much” busted their arse to get it, while the one with “so little”, well, didn’t.
-
February 24, 2009 at 12:01 pm #2764418
Not always the case
by the scummy one · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to And snivel about how “unfair” it is
but generally, yes..
Just like when they cover stuff like this in the news and try to make it out as these people are soo poor that they cannot afford things — but they are getting high in the side yard and downing 40’s, smoking cigs, and complaining that they cant afford rent, but chatting about how cool their new video game for their PS3 is.
LOL
-
February 24, 2009 at 12:12 pm #2764411
Especially when
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Not always the case
[i]how cool their new video game for their PS3 is. [/i]
when hooked to the 60-inch plasma 🙂
-
-
-
February 22, 2009 at 1:53 pm #2765299
We Maintain Economic Segregation
by thechas · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
The growth of impoverished people in the US has it roots in the GI’s that returned from World War II and moved their families into the new suburbs that sprang up around all the major cities.
Those that did not have the money to move out stayed behind in what turned into the slums of the 1960’s.
Prior to the economic migration of the middle class, urban poverty had the face of a friend or neighbor. Those that were putting effort into making the best out of what life handed them got a little help each month from their neighbors. Back then, the landlord was apt to live in the building and might lower the rent for someone who was working as hard as they could.
Those that wouldn’t work, were drunk, or were just bad or mean neighbors ended up in the poor house or the poor farm.
After the middle class abandoned the inner city, there was no one left to sort out the good from the bad and the informal system broke down. When the problem of inner city poverty got too big for the cities to handle, they turned to the states who in turn turned to the Federal Government for help.
The only way we are going to “fix” the poverty problem in the US is to get back to full economic integration. Only when we have economic integration can we return to the informal private aid system that helps out those that need help and not those that just want a handout.
But, don’t ask me how we will get there.
Chas
-
February 22, 2009 at 5:54 pm #2765264
I have heard talk of that
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to We Maintain Economic Segregation
And they are trying it in parts of the country. Government funds were being wasted to pay the lions share of “the poor” to get them into the upscale neighborhoods.
The problem? They brought the problems from the inner city to the upscale neighborhoods.
Until poor (bad) behavior is no longer condoned or wrote off as “their culture”, the inner city lifestyle will continue to degrade, continuing to lower their own quality of life.
-
February 22, 2009 at 6:03 pm #2765262
Agree.
by dhcdbd · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to We Maintain Economic Segregation
I have long supported that poverty is a taught value rather than something that one is born into or that happens to them.
To overcome the teaching, the various poverty stricken need to be relocated among the middle class. By having friends and acquaintances among those in better straights then themselves the impoverished learn new values and in-turn also learn to help others.
There are two issues with this approach however. The first is the elitism that we live from day to day. The second is how do we relocate the poor into middle class neighborhoods? A third related problem that we, ourselves and others, must learn to rely on ourselves rather than to look for others to do for us.
-
February 22, 2009 at 6:40 pm #2765258
What is the most common outcome of that
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Agree.
is the middle class neighborhood is over run by the poor values that are brought into the community.
The people with values then move out, again, leaving another area devastated because of gutter values.
Now, if the community were ALLOWED to tell people to behave in a civilized manner and dress in a civilized manner, there might be a chance, but that is never going to happen, thanks to political correctness.
-
February 22, 2009 at 8:43 pm #2768972
A perfect example…
by dhcdbd · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to What is the most common outcome of that
of the elitism I had written of. Also a very good example of the gross misinformation and prejudice that is common.
A few cities have tried what I suggested. The common belief is what you suggest. The belief was not supported by the actual events and facts. The individual poverty stricken family had their income increase in the first year by 30 percent. The families internalized the values of the middle class people in whose area’s they were relocated. The trick was not to overload any area with masses of poor. Just incorporate one or two families into any given area. In contrast with the great “Ghetto’s,” this was a program that worked. The poor were not given anything except decent terms for subsidized loans on the homes that they were allowed to purchase; most of these homes were foreclosed HUD homes or homes that were condemned and refurbished. One of the cities that these tests (experiments, whatever) was conducted was Detroit, another test area was L.A., and yet another was Phoenix. The information is available from HUD if you really wish to look into the matter.
As a child I grew up in an affluent middle class neighborhood in Las Vegas, Nv. I was surprised in later life to find that that area was now considered to be near ghetto. On the surface, this would support your belief and assertion. The reality is different than appearance. The home was built in 1962 and my dad purchased it for $19,500 in 1963 as a new home in East Las Vegas about three miles from Sunrise Mountain. We, the children, grew up and moved to the trendier parts of town. The owners of those homes we grew up in either died or moved to trendier parts. The homes in that neighborhood that came up on market were older by the standards of the city and thus of a lower value than the new homes in the trendier West Las Vegas on the other side of the strip. This placed the value of the homes within the reach of the less affluent. The home I grew up in sold for $60,000. A new home in the more fashionable parts sold for $100,000. The artificiality of L.V. is a good example in this case because of the pretense and falseness of the city – Money talks, B.S. walks; if you have money the town is open, if you do not then get lost.
The poor or less affluent are just like everyone else; they desire to own their own homes. The poor purchased what they could afford. It often is the case that the poor do not invade an area, but rather move into the area’s that the better off abandon.
Cultures are cultures, and cultures are taught not passed on genetically.
How someone dresses is really none of your business unless that dress is displayed in the workplace. The fact that a black man calls another black man “N*gg*r” is none of your business as long as it is not in the workplace. I frequently call my friends “Honky,” as I do myself – when we are not on public display for work. I associate with Mexicans, Blacks, Whites, Indians, just about everything. Amongst ourselves we use every politically incorrect name you could think of.
It is not the blacks that are keeping the hip-hop culture alive – it is the wanna be white children that are doing it.
Assimilation is a part of our culture. To paraphrase the Eagles: “Just Get Used to It.”
But please, verify your information on something more than unfounded opinion.
-
February 22, 2009 at 9:01 pm #2768967
I said nothing about race
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to A perfect example…
as I see all to much the little white boy running around, having to hold up his pants because he thinks looking like a retard is cool.
As for my “opinion”, it was based on news reports a few weeks back.
In the time since the importation of “the poor”, crime shot up. coincidence?
And I am far from an elitist. I am far from rich. when my boys (twins) were born, I was making less than $20k a year. I did not increase my income by having someone else pick up the tab.
-
February 22, 2009 at 9:36 pm #2768958
No, I said something about race,
by dhcdbd · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I said nothing about race
because race is often associated with poverty. News reports? Fox, NBC, ABC, etc., how much of the crime rising is really associated with the current economic trends? Pack reporting is sensationalist at best.
The individuals that I mentioned in those programs did not have someone else pick up the tab. To date, to the best of my knowledge, only one defaulted on the subsidized loan. Many gave up this opportunity and returned to the projects because they could/would not accept the cultural values. This is a hand up, not a handout. I would want the same for you in your current situation. I do, however, strongly disagree with taking homeless that choose to be that way and endlessly supporting them because they refuse to get sober, off the dope – whatever.
My opinion is based on research. Papers were submitted to the University of Utah several years ago.
-
February 23, 2009 at 11:03 am #2768729
Sounds kinda like
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to A perfect example…
[i]Just incorporate one or two families into any given area.[/i]
forced busing….
-
February 23, 2009 at 11:16 am #2768721
Volunteers.
by dhcdbd · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Sounds kinda like
The individuals involved in this study were all volunteers.
The most successful study came from Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Culture shock can be quit, well… a shock because it involves a paradigm shift.
More to your issue of forced busing ala Brown v. The Board of Education. Forced busing resulted in the Kansas Charter Schools that were listed as the best in the nation.
Old hack:
How many psychiatrists does it take to change a light bulb? Just one, but the light bulb really has to want to change. -
February 23, 2009 at 11:53 am #2768696
It was the word
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Volunteers.
‘incorporate’ that threw me.
…[i]the light bulb really has to want to change. [/i]
Indeed… And if it doesn’t want to, it should be left alone as long as it is not hurting someone.
-
-
-
February 22, 2009 at 3:33 pm #2765279
Poverty and government
by av . · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
LBJ’s war on poverty had good intentions, but there isn’t an exit strategy, unfortunately. Its just going to get even bigger under Obama.
The question to me is why are so many people (50% according to the quote) living in poverty and why are they there in the first place?
Aside from people in abject poverty, I have to say to those in relative poverty – get a job! Get two jobs and stop having kids you can’t support. Look at what Octomom did on the public dole. Take responsibility for yourself. They won’t, as long as welfare exists. You can live on that for years.
Poverty used to mean abject poverty in the past. Most people were too proud to be on the public dole, but today its become a lifestyle. Thats where relative poverty comes into play. You can take advantage of the government programs if you have low income and live just like people that work hard. Why work hard when theres a free ride?
AV
-
February 22, 2009 at 6:46 pm #2765256
And there are the bleeding hearts leading them to their doom
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Poverty and government
“they have a RIGHT to have kids”. They have the right to have as many as they can afford to care for. Until states quit giving them a pay raise for having more kids…..
The high school drop-out that we are suppose to feel sorry for, because they are unworthy of a high end job? Hardly.
And then there is the poor communities standing with criminals against the police, means they deserve all the crime and violence they are in turn subjected to.
The city of Detroit knew what a low life Kilpatric was and is, but they LIKED their “gangsta Mayor” and kept re-electing him no matter WHAT he did.
It took him going to jail to get him removed from office.
Detroit deserves everything bad that is happening to them now because of this.
-
February 22, 2009 at 8:49 pm #2768971
If
by boxfiddler · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to And there are the bleeding hearts leading them to their doom
we weren’t so busy circumventing the process of natural selection via our technology, I don’t think we’d have to worry about that sort of thing.
Or a whole lot of other things. -
February 22, 2009 at 8:59 pm #2768968
Gross misunderstanding.
by dhcdbd · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to And there are the bleeding hearts leading them to their doom
>”And then there is the poor communities standing with criminals against the police, means they deserve all the crime and violence they are in turn subjected to.”
The poor actually have a greater respect for the police than the middle class. Because they have also seen greater abuses at the hands of the police, they have a greater mistrust.
-
February 22, 2009 at 9:05 pm #2768965
DHCDBD
by santeewelding · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Gross misunderstanding.
This actuality you tender…you have tumbled to Reality?
I will have to elevate my respect.
-
February 22, 2009 at 9:49 pm #2768956
-
February 22, 2009 at 9:57 pm #2768955
-
February 23, 2009 at 5:21 am #2768896
That’s not respect, it’s fear
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Gross misunderstanding.
They know who pays the police, and they know why.
No one without power in the state, trusts the state, and the police are the jackboot of the state.
-
February 23, 2009 at 7:09 am #2768838
Have to disagree Tony.
by dhcdbd · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Gross misunderstanding.
Fear and poor/lower class:
“With the arrest of a 21 year old African American, Los Angeles’s South Central neighborhood of Watts erupted into violence. On August 11, 1965, a Los Angeles police officer flagged down motorist Marquette Frye, whom he suspected of being intoxicated. When a crowd of onlookers began to taunt the policeman, a second officer was called in. According to eyewitness accounts, the second officer struck crowd members with his baton, and news of the act of police brutality soon spread throughout the neighborhood. The incident, combined with escalating racial tensions, overcrowding in the neighborhood, and a summer heat wave, sparked violence on a massive scale. Despite attempts the following day aimed at quelling anti police sentiment, residents began looting and burning local stores.”Middle Class and outrage:
“In May 1970, students protesting the bombing of Cambodia by United States military forces, clashed with Ohio National Guardsmen on the Kent State University campus. When the Guardsmen shot and killed four students on May 4, the Kent State Shootings became the focal point of a nation deeply divided by the Vietnam War.”Race and outrage:
“The Los Angeles Riots of 1992, also known as the Rodney King uprising or the Rodney King riots, were sparked on April 29, 1992 when a jury acquitted four police officers accused in the videotaped beating of black motorist Rodney King following a high-speed pursuit. Thousands of people in the Los Angeles area rioted over the six days following the verdict. Widespread looting, assault, arson and murder occurred, and property damages totaled US$1 billion. Many of the crimes were racially motivated or perpetrated. In all, 53 people died during the riots.”I believe it was Machiavelli who wrote “The best leader is loved and respected, if he can not be loved and respected, he should be respected, if he can not be respected, then he should be feared.” (Paraphrased)
However, I meant exactly what I wrote. In this country, the poor generally have a greater respect for the police than the middle class. The respect is not without watchfulness though. The respect for the police is only unmatched by the wealthy whom the police respect and fear.
I find it somewhat ironic that the poor actually respect the police because our prisons are primarily filled by the poor and minorities who could not afford attorney’s and were given second rate legal counsel that pretty much amounts to no counsel.
-
February 23, 2009 at 9:26 am #2768776
I can neither agree or disagree
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Have to disagree Tony.
You said, [i]”In this country, the poor generally have a greater respect for the police than the middle class.[/i]”
That may or may not be true. However, I have to wonder how you could possibly support that assertion (or how the opposing opinion could be supported, for that matter).
I might also point out, since Police Officers are considered middle-class, that you’re suggesting they’re actually least respected amongst their very class peers? Doesn’t sound right to me, although that’s just an opinion.
Opinions differ from. Facts that can be supported; opinions are, well they’re just that – opinions. When one offers an opinion, it shouldn’t be presented as fact – unless it can be supported.
As a passing thought, I wonder what percentage of Police Officers have been killed by those in the middle-class compared to those in the lower-class? Violent crime is what kills Police Officers, and there’s been a direct correlation between violent crime rates and being poor.
-
February 23, 2009 at 9:52 am #2768764
I’ll have to take your word for the US
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Have to disagree Tony.
It definitely isn’t true in the UK.
Respect their power perhaps, as a body though, their only morality and integrity is their ability to enforce the law, no matter how unjust.
I went through the miners strike in the UK, and I was born in a mining community. I know the part the police played in that particular piece of politics, and I lost all respect for them on the spot.
My familily still have the boot print’s to validate my opinion. -
February 23, 2009 at 12:03 pm #2768694
I think…
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Gross misunderstanding.
[i]they have a greater mistrust. [/i]
… there is a growing mistrust of the government in general, and it’s growing in nearly every social and economic sector. Heck, even the various levels of government don’t trust each other!
The next few decades are going to be interesting…
-
February 23, 2009 at 1:06 pm #2768653
I don’t think I would say the poor respect the police
by av . · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Gross misunderstanding.
I agree with Tony. They fear the police. They also fear the criminals, but they stand with them for fear of retribution.
AV
-
February 23, 2009 at 3:47 pm #2764143
Ok.
by dhcdbd · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I don’t think I would say the poor respect the police
Title:
About New York; Where Police Are Eroding Self-Respect.
Authors:
DAVID GONZALEZ
Source:
New York Times; 2/10/1999, p1, 0p
Document Type:
Article
Abstract:
ALTHOUGH the wind and cold can make for a miserable walk home, Floyd Coleman refuses to keep warm and dry under his jacket’s hood. Same thing goes for the bandanna he usually sports to protect the waves in his hair. As bad as the elements might be, he is preoccupied by a more elemental fear in his Bronx River neighborhood. He doesn’t want to make waves with the plainclothes police officers on patrol. ”Even when it’s cold, I try not to wear my hood,” said Mr. Coleman, 27, who works at a youth center. ”Especially at night, because you’re going to get stopped.” [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]Copyright of New York Times is the property of New York Times and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts)
Full Text Word Count:
1008
ISSN:
03624331
Accession Number:
29905723
http://web.ebscohost.com.tproxy01.lib.utah.edu/ehost/detail?vid=7&hid=112&sid=d968626e-092c-4645-8678-69e1247df611%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=29905723 -
February 23, 2009 at 7:09 pm #2764099
yes
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I don’t think I would say the poor respect the police
and more than just fear, there are also many that sympathize with the criminal as making the most of a bad situation. They rationalize the drug dealer.
-
February 23, 2009 at 1:01 pm #2768659
The poor are more afraid of the police than the criminals
by av . · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to And there are the bleeding hearts leading them to their doom
I can liken Detroit to the lovely city of Newark, NJ. The ex-mayor Sharpe James is finally in jail too after being reelected several times. Kilpatric, a true disgrace, also belongs in jail.
The poor stand with the criminals because they face retribution if they don’t. They know they won’t get any sympathy from the police either. Many poor people turn to a life of crime in the ghettos. They don’t look for any other way because the government takes care of them.
I don’t feel sorry for the high school drop-out that can’t get a high end job. If you are willing to work, you can be anything you want in this country. The problem is that they don’t want to work for it.
AV
-
February 23, 2009 at 3:35 pm #2764154
Ok. A question.
by dhcdbd · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The poor are more afraid of the police than the criminals
NCJ Number: NCJ 060262
Title: MINORITY ELDERLY (FROM POLICE AND THE ELDERLY, 1979, BY ARNOLD P GOLDSTEIN ET AL – SEE NCJ-60259)
Author(s): V L WISE ; W J HOYER
Corporate Author: Pergamon Press, Inc
United States
Publication Date: 1979
Pages: 8
Origin: United States
Language: English
Annotation: A REVIEW OF THE PROBLEM OF CRIME AGAINST THE ELDERLY AS IT AFFECTS THE BLACK AND SPANISH ELDERLY, AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS AND POLICE TRAINING ARE PROVIDED.
Abstract: ALTHOUGH MANY OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE MINORITY ELDERLY ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE WHITE ELDERLY, THE PROBLEMS ARE HEIGHTENED BY SUCH FACTORS AS POVERTY AND RACISM. TWO AREAS THAT ARE ESPECIALLY TROUBLESOME FOR THE MINORITY AGED ARE FEAR OF CRIME AND FEAR OF POLICE. CRIME RATES AGAINST MINORITIES ARE HIGHER AND ARE INCREASING AT A FASTER RATE THAN AGAINST WHITES. ON THE AVERAGE THERE ARE BROAD DIFFERENCES IN THE SOCIOECONOMIC LEVEL AND LIVING ARRANGEMENTS OF NONWHITE AND WHITE ELDERLY. MINORITY ELDERLY ARE MORE LIKELY TO LIVE IN POVERTY AND TO BE CONCENTRATED IN CENTRAL CITY GHETTOS OR RURAL POCKETS OF POVERTY. MINORITY ELDERLY ARE ALSO MORE FEARFUL OF POLICE AS A RESULT OF HAVING LIVED DURING AN ERA WHEN POLICE BRUTALITY, RACIAL OPPRESSION, AND DISCRIMINATION WERE MORE COMMON. POLICE WORK IN MINORITY COMMUNITIES IS ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT BECAUSE OF LACK OF UNDERSTANDING AND COOPERATION BETWEEN POLICE AND MINORITIES, ESPECIALLY THE ELDERLY. UNDERSTANDING THE WAYS IN WHICH MINORITIES HAVE BEEN OPPRESSED AND DENIED EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IS HELPFUL TO EFFECTIVE POLICE WORK. THE SHIFT FROM CRIME-CENTERED LAW ENFORCEMENT TO FULL-SERVICE POLICING EMPHASIZING POLICE-COMMUNITY RELATIONS MUST GATHER MOMENTUM TO STRENGTHEN COOPERATION BETWEEN THE POLICE AND MINORITIES. A STATISTICAL TABLE AND REFERENCES ARE PROVIDED. (KCP)
Index Term(s): Black Americans ; Older adults ; Hispano Americans ; Crimes against the elderly
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=60262The Influence of Race/Ethnicity, Social Class, and Neighborhood Context on Residents’ Attitudes Toward the Police
Amie M. SchuckUniversity of Illinois at Chicago, amms@uic.edu
Dennis P. Rosenbaum
University of Illinois at Chicago
Darnell F. Hawkins
University of Illinois at Chicago
The purpose of this study is to extend our understanding of attitudes toward the police by examining how race/ethnicity, social class, and neighborhood context interact to influence four different dimensions of attitudes: neighborhood, global, police services, and fear of the police. The results showed significant racial/ethnic variation in perceptions of the police, with African-Americans reporting the most negative attitudes. The magnitude of the racial/ethnic gap, however, varied across the different attitude dimensions with the largest difference between African-Americans and Whites in terms of fear of the police. The findings also suggested that African-Americans’ and Hispanics’ perceptions of the police are moderated by the interaction of social class and neighborhood socioeconomic composition. Middle-class African-Americans and Hispanics who resided in disadvantaged neighborhoods reported more negative attitudes toward the police than those who resided in more advantaged areas. Overall the study findings highlight the complex interplay between experiences, community context, social class, and type of attitudinal assessment in understanding within and across racial and ethnic variation in residents’ perceptions of the police.
http://pqx.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/4/496A new survey released today indicates that public trust in the law enforcement system has dropped substantially among minorities, undermining the legitimacy of the criminal justice system, and hindering effective policing in minority communities. Only 20% of Latino and African American survey respondents say they have “a lot of faith” in local law enforcement, compared to 85% of white respondents. One reason for declining trust is the continuing practice of racial profiling, according to civil rights activists. Reginald Wilson, executive director of the Black Ministers Council stated, “Policymakers underestimate the burden placed on innocent people stopped by law enforcement officers because of racial profiling. These incidents lead to a reasonable fear of police officers, and risk alienating communities while doing little to serve law enforcement.” Daniel Nelson is a typical example of how trust is undermined by racial profiling. Nelson is a well-dressed young African American man who works as an accountant. Last month he was stopped by state troopers: “It was early in the morning and I was driving my Ford Explorer when I saw the blue lights of a patrol car. My heart sank because I was worried about being late for a job interview, but I thought it wouldn’t take long. Instead of simply asking for a driver’s license, the trooper called for backup and started to go through every inch of the Explorer, pulling off door panels and looking under the carpet. They said they were looking for drugs, but of course they found nothing. Afterwards, sitting in my trashed SUV, I wept in anger and humiliation.” Though publicly decried, police departments across the country continue to train police officers to profile based on race, ethnicity, and religion. In fact, the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Operation Pipeline, which was intended to disrupt the shipment of cocaine on highways, emphasized the correlation between drug trafficking and racial characteristics. According to Jim Davis, a New Jersey state trooper, “Our supervisors trained us to focus on black- and brown-skinned drivers because we were told they were more likely to be drug traffickers.” The reality, however, is that the “hit rate” ? the percentage of searches in which contraband is found ? is the same for black and white drivers according to studies conducted in Maryland, New Jersey, and California. But African American and Latino drivers are far more likely to be stopped and searched, according to a new U.S. Department of Justice report. Even when all factors are taken into account, such as the neighborhood’s ethnic makeup, crime rate, etc., African American and Latino drivers are 2-3 times as likely to be stopped and searched as white drivers. “Racial profiling not only constitutes discrimination; it is also an unsound, inefficient method of policing,” noted trooper Davis. And the impact, according to Wilson, “Extends beyond direct victims to negatively affect all persons of color, because we all lose faith in law enforcement when we hear about these injustices.”
http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/ezine30.htmlPut the data together and answer the question.
-
February 23, 2009 at 7:08 pm #2764100
Profiling and something else you posted
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Ok. A question.
If black on black crimes are higher, then how is that NOT something to note about someone when looking for suspicious activities?
Ages, the way someone is dressed, where they are at certain times of the day/night, and yes, race, are all valid things to look at.
When there is not a higher percentage per capita, then we can talk about it NOT being valid.
The key isn’t if they get questioned, but convicted based upon the profile.
Then again, I have found out first hand that the laws of this nation are for controlling us, not protecting us.
-
February 23, 2009 at 10:43 pm #2764054
The question,
by dhcdbd · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Profiling and something else you posted
is implied in those three abstracts and the manner in which they are ordered in response to the post above it.
What you point out, while valid in each points own right, is not the question.
Call it a test of perception, if you will. What it addresses is the assertion that the poor and minorities fear the criminals more than the police and so side with the criminal. It is true that in the ghetto a drug dealer may be more respected than whatever, but this does not surrender to the idea that the poor side with the criminal; it would be more indicative of respect shown to a person getting ahead in oppressive circumstances.
Regarding dress, where I live one would get questioned by the police for wearing holey jeans, but when I lived in L.A., seemingly centuries ago, those holey jeans may be covering a multimillionaire.
If I am standing in front of a building at midnight and the alarm goes off, even if I am the only one in sight, does that mean I attempted to enter the building? How about if there is a bus stop there as well?
If I refuse to talk to police, does it mean I have something to hide?
If I were black and lived in Washington D.C. would racially profiling me be proper? How about Cuban and living in Tampa. What about if I were Hispanic and in Texas. Without something more, profiling is simply intolerable. The Hispanic, if I did not speak English or spoke English poorly with a heavy accent, then there would be reasonable suspicion that I might be an illegal immigrant. But the suspicion is only a suspicion unless proven. I know several Hispanics here in Utah that are about my age and whom speak no English and were born here in Utah.
Yes, the laws are for controlling us and not protecting as the police are for busting us and not protecting us.
It is a controversial area, which is why I switched to backing my statements; I had already stated, I believe to you, that my opinion is based on research, not sentiment.
It is a proven fact, that police are responsible for much domestic violence; that they take out their job frustration on their wifes and children. Why, then, are police allowed to carry weapons on and off duty that the rest of us are restricted from? Why is a convicted felon prohibited from owning a sidearm? If the conviction were for armed robbery, it makes sense; it the conviction were for bad checks, it is idiotic; if the conviction were for murder, then a grey area is entered because most murders are one off crimes of passion. Each item needs to be taken in total context.
-
February 27, 2009 at 5:11 pm #2762807
I don’t know what the question is
by av . · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Ok. A question.
How can I answer it? Your article is about racial profiling and elderly minorities and the police. Where are you going with this?
AV
-
-
-
February 23, 2009 at 5:56 am #2768873
I agree with the opening quote.
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
and I believe I’ve said as much.
[i]Has the definition of poverty changed over time?[/i]
I don’t know if it’s ever been properly defined. I also think you can’t define it solely on one factor (like income). I think it’s like beauty… in the eye of the beholder…
[i]And finally, is the goal of assisting those living in poverty best left to the private sector to address, or is government involvement more effective? Is it better addressed on larger scales or smaller?
[/i]It depends… If you want to spend 3 times as much, let government do it 🙂
-
February 23, 2009 at 6:24 am #2768857
The final question
by rob mekel · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
[i]”is the goal of assisting those living in poverty best left to the private sector to address, or is government involvement more effective?”[/i]
Seen in the light of now-a-days economic-crisis and how it came to that is easily answerred: [b]Better not be left to the private sector[/b]
-
February 23, 2009 at 8:20 am #2768815
Given the way government mis-manages money,
by boxfiddler · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to The final question
best not leave it to them, either. Leaving what option?
-
February 23, 2009 at 8:28 am #2768807
That, Boxfiddler
by santeewelding · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Given the way government mis-manages money,
Was a cruel can opener, indifferent to shibboleths and sensibilities.
-
February 23, 2009 at 8:49 am #2768796
Conqueror worm.
by boxfiddler · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to That, Boxfiddler
Poor thing needs air now and then.
-
February 24, 2009 at 12:32 am #2764023
special if
by rob mekel · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to That, Boxfiddler
that can contains their own “cookies” :^0
The question one should ask is:
Why has the government to spend “our” money to companies that have to deal with bad-management ?:| -
February 24, 2009 at 6:51 am #2763939
-
February 24, 2009 at 7:42 am #2763909
So … ;)
by rob mekel · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Simple
even [b]if[/b] we leave it to private … government will control it … then wth don’t we cut out the middle man … let’s say … cut out private … as the only thing that their good for is sticky fingers were the money stays ]:)
So all in all let’s leave it to Government 😉
-
February 24, 2009 at 8:09 am #2764560
You misunderstand.
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to So … ;)
“control” is WHY our government does what it does.
[i]So all in all let’s leave it to Government[/i]
No, let’s not! Let’s instead look for peaceful means to reduce government’s control of the individual. And if that doesn’t work, it’s time to cram as many politicians as we can into Ted Kennedy’s car and have him take them for a ride.
-
February 25, 2009 at 6:08 am #2765127
do I, now
by rob mekel · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to So … ;)
Ah if that is your point then by all means … tell me how do we stop the sticky fingers of “top-managers” grabbing around in [u]our[/u] money-pot. The Fannie-Mae-managers and others are hard to stop if there isn’t anybody making rules to good managementship. For sure as shareholders have the more short-term then long-term gain in their mind … the short-term visions are taking the jobs at the moment … from 5 to up to 15% or more let-go-unemployed ppl in the USA at the moment within a month of time. I’m not sure if that is the way to go.
Oh, btw, is he still alive ?:| Wasn’t he very ill at the moment his niece was candidate for the Senate’s-job of Hillary ?
-
February 25, 2009 at 7:24 am #2765065
It’s only “mine”
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to So … ;)
[i]tell me how do we stop the sticky fingers of “top-managers” grabbing around in our money-pot[/i]
to the extent that they borrowed tax money. We shouldn’t have let them do that. Nothing we can do about it now though.
There are people who invested in the debt as well… sucks to be them. They accepted the risk. I chose not to, and should not be made to.
-
February 24, 2009 at 12:21 am #2764029
Well who was asking whom for what
by rob mekel · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Given the way government mis-manages money,
I agree that some of the money spend by government is bad spend, special if the money goes to companies that use that money to pay the extraordinairy bonusses to their kicked-out-for-bad-management managers.
At least we have, allthough minor, a vote in who is in the government.Tell me if I’m incorrect, didn’t GM and Chrysler ask the Obama-administration for money to survive in the private sector … wasn’t that same crisis brought on rol by the private sector by malicious management.
I guess I don’t have to bring up Enron again or other themselfs enriching parties.My guess is that we’re [b]not[/b] better off with the private sector taking care of
[i]”the goal of assisting those living in poverty”[/i]
And given the 2 options … the quest goes to …
[b]government[/b] -
February 24, 2009 at 8:14 am #2764556
And of course,
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Well who was asking whom for what
[i]I agree that some of the money spend by government is bad spend[/i]
The answer to that is to give them MORE money to “bad spend”?
-
February 25, 2009 at 6:24 am #2765111
For sure
by rob mekel · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to And of course,
that’s better then let it to private where the money is only spend on themselfs … ergo is worse spend and not on educating/financing measures that will get those ppl out of their isolation and let them become workers that help the economics out of the dip to regain faith and create jobs again.
To make it more clear [u]I’m not in for a government that makes rules to control us.[/u] Otherside is that I’m even less for leaving all to managers that get big bonuses while meanwhile companies they suposed to manage go bankrupt.
-
February 25, 2009 at 7:29 am #2765062
When I spend on myself
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to For sure
[i]that’s better then let it to private where the money is only spend on themselfs[/i]
I am paying wages of people who make what I buy. If I spend more, and other spend more, more stuff will have to be made, and more people required to make it.
[i]Otherside is that I’m even less for leaving all to managers that get big bonuses while meanwhile companies they suposed to manage go bankrupt.[/i]
Don’t deal with companies that do that. They’ll fail, and another will grow to fill the need. That’s the way it’s SUPPOSED to work. It’s a self-correcting mechanism if you just leave it alone.
-
February 25, 2009 at 7:52 am #2765043
Just reading today
by jamesrl · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to When I spend on myself
About Canada’s “biggest” salaried earner, the president of Magna auto parts.
http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/592582
In 2007 he took home 70 million (CDN), between salary, consulting fees and stock options. For 2008, it will be under 10 million.
Funny I had to go to a bank branch yesterday, and the closest one to my office is in a swanky high fashion mall, with some upscale restaurants etc.
It was deserted. Some big sales at some places. No line ups at the eateries at lunch. The staff at the bookstore were very attentive.
James
-
February 25, 2009 at 8:58 am #2764978
Businesses have been going under as long as there have been companies
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to When I spend on myself
If it isn’t run correctly, it goes away.
If it doesn’t have a marketable product, it goes away.
If the market can’t sustain their market share, it goes away.
It FORCES the next company to be smarter. The current corporate welfare only rewards the dumb while punishing everyone else.
-
-
-
February 23, 2009 at 8:29 am #2768806
I believe the quote suggests. . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
…..that poverty is a permanent societal condition, one that’s existed across all places and all times, and it’s one that will always exist, regardless of the efforts to end it. For example, a person might not have been able to afford a loaf of bread in 1909 because it cost a whopping 5 cents, while a different person in 2009 might also not be able to afford a load of bread because it costs a whopping $1.00.
It’s all relative, and I believe that was the intent behind the quote. I also believe that poverty is, and always will be, a permanent societal condition – something that simply cannot be eradicated.
(Note: I do believe that abject poverty – that is, those without the basic living necessities such as food, water, clothing, and shelter – can be helped by donations of such, but it would only create, at best, an environment of simply sustaining a permanent dependent class, which is certainly better than the alternative.)
[b]Definitions:[/b]
[b][i]Abject poverty:[/i][/b] Lacking the basic necessities to survive, such as food, water, clothing, and shelter.
[b][i]Relative Poverty:[/i][/b] One’s position on the class scale as compared to others on the same scale.
With the slimmest of exceptions, I don’t believe that abject poverty exists in the United States.
Poverty in the United States is measured by one’s income, not by one’s living conditions. And the worst living condition in the United States might be exponentially better than the best living conditions under which most people in some nations find themselves.
There always have been, currently are, and always will be a separation of classes – not just in the United States, but in every country across the globe.
In his 1949 book, [i]Social Class in America[/i], sociologist William Lloyd Warner suggest a class separation similar to this:
[b]Upper-upper class.[/b] “Old money.” People who have been born into and raised with wealth; mostly consists of old “noble” or prestigious families (e.g., Earl of Shrewsbury, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller).
[b]Lower-upper class.[/b] “New money.” Individuals who have become rich within their own lifetimes (e.g., entrepreneurs, movie stars, top athletes, as well as some prominent professionals).
[b]Upper-middle class.[/b] Professionals with a college education, and more often with postgraduate degrees like MBAs, Ph.D.s, MDs, JDs, MSs, etc. (e.g., doctors, dentists, lawyers, bankers, corporate executives, university professors, scientists, pharmacists, airline pilots, ship captains, high level civil servants, politicians, and military officers, architects, artists, writers, poets, and musicians).
[b]Lower-middle class.[/b] Lower paid white collar workers, but not manual laborers. Often hold Associates or Bachelor degrees. (e.g., police officers, fire fighters, primary and high school school-teachers, engineers, accountants, nurses, municipal office workers and low to mid-level civil servants, sales representatives, non-management office workers, clergy, technicians, small business owners).
[b]Upper-lower class.[/b] Blue-collar workers and manual laborers. Also known as the “working class.”
[b]Lower-lower class.[/b] The homeless and permanently unemployed, as well as the “working poor.”
A person is either born into a class or moves from one to another (either up or down). And I believe people can aspire to improve their position on the class ladder. But I further believe that those people who aspire to improve their conditions can ONLY do so at the hands of their own self-motivated desires. Such people can be helped and encouraged, of course, but I don’t believe a person can be plucked from the lower-lower class, for example, and dropped into the lower-middle class and sustain that standard of living without a continuing and permanent dependence on another. It must come from a desire to improve one’s own condition, otherwise the only thing created is a dependent class.
A Marxist solution would suggest taking from the upper classes (by a variety of means) so that it can be redistributed amongst the lower classes, thereby equalizing outcome. That solution never has, and never will work. If you want to argue in favor of such a solution, please do so – but admit what it really is.
I’d like to ask this question. If the United States has failed at eradicating poverty throughout its history, what country has been successful? What nation of the world has eradicated poverty within its borders, and has structured its society in such a way that living in poverty is a thing of the past? If you can name such a country, please provide support. (This question relates to relative poverty, not abject poverty.)
A concluding question, therefore, is this. What’s the BEST way to get as many people as possible out of ABJECT poverty (which, with minor exceptions, doesn’t really exist in most industrialized nations, i.e. the USA, Canada, UK, Australia, etc.)? And what is the BEST way to get as many people as possible out of RELATIVE poverty – that is, to have fewer people in the lower classes, with more people in the higher classes?
The answer is this, and charts will support my assertion. (Feel free to search for them – easy to find if you try.)
The nations that have the highest rates of poverty ALSO have the lowest amount of economic freedom. The nations that score the HIGHEST on the [i]Index of Economic Freedom[/i], also have the lowest percentage of their population living below the poverty line (however measured). The higher the level of economic freedom, the lower the poverty rate will be.
I might also add that the United States has lost its top position on the [i]Index of Economic Freedom[/i] over the years. Our goal should be to retake that top position. Unfortunately, silly and ineffective social programs – like the [i]War on Poverty[/i] – will keep us (the U.S.) from regaining that top spot.
How ironic – the very programs designed to end poverty only create more of it.
___________________________________________________________________________________Edited: Because these discussion threads don’t like some of the characters (apostrophes, dashes, etc.) that were created in [i]Word[/i]. (I wish the folks at TR could fix this problem.)
P.S. (Another edit): Living below the [i]poverty line[/i] does not necessarily mean living below the [i]happiness line[/i]. Three single people all earning $10k, sharing a house and expenses, would all be considered living below the [i]poverty line[/i], but it might not necessarily be a bad – or permanent – thing for them.
-
February 23, 2009 at 10:17 am #2768756
For your thought.
by dhcdbd · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I believe the quote suggests. . . . .
Abstract:
In 2001, U.S. Senator Zell Miller and former Governor of Georgia obtained congressional support for a multistate research team to examine persistent poverty in the South and to make recommendations for regional solutions. This study built upon previous research on the Black Belt South by the presenters who were also among the principal investigators in the Miller Study. The Miller-Study’s report, Dismantling Persistent Poverty in the Southeastern United States, directs attention to poverty and other conditions with a primary focus on the seven Southeastern states. This poster presentation extends the scope of the Miller Study by examining conditions of the broader Black Belt South and how these conditions contrast to the well-being of the rest of the nation. This is done with a series of color maps from 2000 census data and other sources. One map shows the counties of the larger 11-state Black Belt South in national context. Other maps show the locations of counties in persistent poverty across the United States. We show that most of the nation’s persistent-poverty counties are to be found in the larger Black Belt South including places in the seven states that were the focus of the Miller Study. The presentation also outlines findings and policy recommendations from the Miller Study plus others added by the presenters of this display. One of the presenters’ recommendations is to establish a federal regional commission, similar to the Appalachian Regional Commission, that will address the long-standing disparities of the entire Black Belt South.
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/0/7/5/3/p107530_index.htmlSome places in the south have poverty equally as persistent and as “Abject” (by your terms) as anything in Ethiopia. You have to go into the back bayous; ditto with the Ozarks and some of the mountain people.
-
February 23, 2009 at 10:27 am #2768751
I did say. . . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to For your thought.
[i]With the slimmest of exceptions, I don’t believe that abject poverty exists in the United States.[/i]
I suppose it depends on what the definition of [i]slimmest[/i] is?
As a number pulled out of the air, I might suggest it’s much less than one-tenth of one percent of our population – maybe even one-one hundredth of one percent. (Without research, I can’t support that [i]guess[/i].)
No food, water, clothing, or shelter? Nope, you’d be hard-pressed to find it in the USA.
-
February 23, 2009 at 10:32 am #2768745
More food for thought.
by dhcdbd · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I did say. . . . . .
“Abstract:
A brief narrative description of the journal article, document, or resource. Of the 27 million poor people in the United States in 1970, 10 million lived in the 11 Southern states. This was 38% of the nation’s poverty population, making the South’s poverty rate twice that of the remaining 39 states. This study, essentially a statistical analysis of regional poverty data derived from the 1970 Census, identifies the South’s poor in detail in order to provide a statistical base for remedial action. Data were obtained on residence and poverty, the working poor, the South’s elderly poor, family income and the poverty line, and poor Southern families with children. Findings included: while in “absolute numbers” more white males headed poor families than any other race/sex grouping, the incidence of poverty was highest among black female-headed families; the difference in poverty incidence between the South and the non-South was greatest for black males; the South’s rural areas had the highest poverty rate; of Southern employed family heads, 54% of black females, 26% of black males, 18% of white females, and 6% of white males did not earn enough to keep out of poverty; almost half of Southern farm laborers and about one-quarter of Southern farm owners were in poverty; poverty incidence among male headed-families with children was nearly twice as high in rural areas as in urban areas; 9% of the white elderly and 23% of the black elderly in the South were poor and did not receive Social Security benefits. Appended is brief data on the Spanish American poor population in Florida and Texas. (NQ)”
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED154966&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED154966 -
February 23, 2009 at 10:43 am #2768736
[i]Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to For your thought.
[i]….. a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.[/i]
Source, context, and the full story:
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/BG1713es.cfm
Here’s what is very telling:
[i]As noted above, father absence is another major cause of child poverty. Nearly two-thirds of poor children reside in single-parent homes; each year, an additional 1.3 million children are born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children, nearly three-quarters of the nation’s impoverished youth would immediately be lifted out of poverty.[/i]
Instead of supporting those [i]poor[/i] with taxpayer dollars, I’d much rather favor a law that demands a father support his children, lest he finds himself in jail until his children become adults. (Disclaimer: That was an impulsive comment – not much thought given to any unintended consequences.)
-
February 23, 2009 at 11:29 am #2768711
yea THEY call it poverty
by tink! · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has
but I call it “lower income”. Actually when applying for any of the assistance services, it is usually referred to as lower income as well. Although the scale used calls it the Poverty Level.
Before my SO went on disability (which comes out of the SS dollars he paid throughout his years of work) and before my last raise, we were considered Lower Income – just barely. Being on that end personally, I have no problems with working people receiving assistance from the government. I disagree more with fully funding non-working families.
As for the children with no father support – they do have laws to force the fathers to provide support or end up in jail. But if the father has no job – where does he get the support?
-
February 23, 2009 at 1:27 pm #2764223
And a lot of that
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has
[i]Instead of supporting those poor with taxpayer dollars, I’d much rather favor a law that demands a father support his children, lest he finds himself in jail until his children become adults.[/i]
can be addressed by changing the laws that strongly favor giving primary physical custody to mothers (it’s often just back-door alimony, since the father has no say in how the money is actually spent… it’s amazing how many “new fluffys” get new motorcycles at the ex-husband’s expense while the children suffer)). Unless there’s a damned good reason, or the parents agree otherwise, physical custody should be required to be 50/50.
[soapbox]
(Or, if “the best interest of the child” was really what the government was after, they could read the statistics (that show that children from “father only” families do better in every category than children from “mother only” families), and legislate accordingly!)
[/soapbox] -
February 24, 2009 at 7:42 am #2763908
I do agree
by tink! · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to And a lot of that
that legislation of custody should not default to the mother, but nor should it default to the father. Every situation has to be handled on an individual basis. The mother is not automatically the best parent. There are many situations where the father would be better for the kids.
-
February 24, 2009 at 9:02 am #2764534
It’s funny
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I do agree
how “the best interest of the child” issue only comes up in a divorce.
Then abracadabra, the mother wins because she’s the “nurturer” (the only time she loses in contested cases is where clear danger is evidenced in court). Even though suicide, drug abuse, school drop-out, teen pregnancy, etc. are ALL much higher in homes where the father is absent vs. homes where the mother is absent. Girls raised mother-only homes are also 15 times more likely to end up on public assistance than girls raised in father only homes (across all income levels!). And yet the government, knowing this, INTENTIONALLY puts children with their mothers 89% of the time! It should be crystal clear that a child needs more than “every other weekend and two weeks in the summer” to get what they need from their father, and that money alone is no replacement for that.
“The best interest of the child” standard should not be applied any differently to divorced or never-married parents than it does to married ones. To do so is a blatant violation of the 14th amendment. It should have been thus decided long ago, but the courts know that the government would be giving up a significant amount of control as well as money, not to mention all the “victims” they are creating.
I truly despise what this country is becoming…
-
February 27, 2009 at 4:03 am #2763463
What?
by reginadotnet · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to And a lot of that
(Or, if “the best interest of the child” was really what the government was after, they could read the statistics (that show that children from “father only” families do better in every category than children from “mother only” families), and legislate accordingly!)
Why do you think that is true?
5000 women taking care of kids alone vs 100 men taking care of kids alone? How do you make a legit comparison?
The fact that men make more money to do the same job? Bring home more money?
Where did you find these statistics?
-
February 27, 2009 at 7:16 am #2763351
percentage-wise…
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to What?
[i]Why do you think that is true?[/i]
Discipline would be my guess.
[i]5000 women taking care of kids alone vs 100 men taking care of kids alone? How do you make a legit comparison?[/i]
Children of father-only homes are (as a percentage) more likely to attend college and generally are more successful in life. They are also less likely to run afoul of the law, use illegal drugs, get pregnant, or commit suicide. Fathers are less likely to try to interfere with the relationship of the child with the other parent. Children living with divorced mothers and their new partner are also far more likely to be sexually assaulted by the partner.
[i]The fact that men make more money to do the same job? Bring home more money?[/i]
Higher income lowers the numbers, but does not significantly change the comparative percentages. Children of rich single fathers generally do better than children of rich single mothers.
[i]Where did you find these statistics? [/i]
Lots of places. Google is your friend, but some examples:
“Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.: Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.
[b](Why does a government agency know this with their own research, yet do not attempt to change the law to accommodate the cure?)[/b]
“Kids who exhibited violent behavior at school were 11 times as likely not to live with their fathers and six times as likely to have parents who were not married. Boys from families with absent fathers are at higher risk for violent behavior than boys from intact families.” Source: J.L. Sheline (et al.), “Risk Factors…”, American Journal of Public Health, No. 84. 1994.
“Children from mother-only families have less of an ability to delay gratification and poorer impulse control (that is, control over anger and sexual gratification.) These children also have a weaker sense of conscience or sense of right and wrong.” Source: E.M. Hetherington and B. Martin, “Family Interaction” in H.C. Quay and J.S. Werry (eds.), Psychopathological Disorders of Childhood. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979).
“Father hunger” often afflicts boys age one and two whose fathers are suddenly and permanently absent. Sleep disturbances, such as trouble falling asleep, nightmares, and night terrors frequently begin within one to three months after the father leaves home. Source: Alfred A. Messer, “Boys Father Hunger: The Missing Father Syndrome,” Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality, January 1989.
“71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes.” Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.
“72% of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. 60% of America’s rapists grew up the same way.” Source: D. Cornell (et al.), Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5. 1987. And N. Davidson, “Life Without Father,” Policy Review. 1990.
“The proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rate of violent crime and burglary, but the community’s poverty level does not.”
Source: D.A. Smith and G.R. Jarjoura, “Social Structure and Criminal Victimization,” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25. 1988.“70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes.” Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988.
“85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home.” Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992.
Anything else????
-
February 27, 2009 at 10:20 am #2763261
And just wow!
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to What?
You’ve been on here for two years and you chose responding to me as your first post. I feel honored 🙂
-
February 23, 2009 at 12:45 pm #2768667
Again you have to ask
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to For your thought.
“What is poverty?”
Is it having less income (than someone else? If so, who?)?
Is it not being able to meet one’s needs? Needs vary, don’t they? And who determines these needs?
Is it dependent on the local or regional cost of living? If not, why not?
-
-
February 23, 2009 at 11:17 am #2768720
That begs another question.
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I believe the quote suggests. . . . .
[i]Living below the poverty line does not necessarily mean living below the happiness line. Three single people all earning $10k, sharing a house and expenses, would all be considered living below the poverty line, but it might not necessarily be a bad – or permanent – thing for them. [/i]
If someone is happy, who the hell are we to tell them they’re not?
“That man is the richest whose pleasures are the cheapest.”
Henry David Thoreau
-
February 23, 2009 at 11:21 am #2768717
Exactly correct, Tony
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to That begs another question.
Love the quote!
-
-
February 23, 2009 at 11:47 am #2768699
As a nasty orrible socialist
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I believe the quote suggests. . . . .
I agree wholeheartedly. 😀
You might not want me on your side though.
To me the attacks on people receiving wefare, even those milking or even defrauding the system are a smoke screen.
The real problem is, the people who pay for welfare, that’s thee and me , can’t afford to buy politicians and get ourselves exempted, and are in minorities as a cohesive voting block.
Our politics for instance are different on so many issues it’s unlikely we’d vote the same snout in the trough. The welfare types though will naturally and sensibly vote en masse, for some one who gives them more.
Better still the snouts use our money to buy them. The rich b’stards who fund their campaigns dodge their tax burden, after all they don’t endure their company for a laugh.So we are getting spit roasted, and all we can do is hope the rich guy prefers oral, because he’s more likely to have washed.
-
February 23, 2009 at 11:56 am #2768695
Thas ‘orrible
by santeewelding · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to As a nasty orrible socialist
Pretty much on the mark, though.
-
February 23, 2009 at 3:13 pm #2764169
I actually love it when we agree
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to As a nasty orrible socialist
And I don’t care how either of us might be mischaracterized as a result!
-
-
-
February 23, 2009 at 9:26 am #2768775
Unless the world became a utopia
by tink! · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
there will always be poverty. Poverty is a relative definition which can change with the times. Currently, if looking at our own country most of us consider the poverty-stricken to be those who live in the inner cities and primarily rely on welfare. In order to get them out of poverty we would have to a) move them into better neighborhoods, b) find them a good long-term job that they would appreciate enough to stay with, c) get rid of gangs.
Unfortunately doing all three is near impossible. Gangs are an answer to many who live in poverty as they provide support both monetarily and emotionally.
Just moving them into a better neighborhood is not enough to break the lines of racial and economical differences. Those already residing in the better neighborhoods are going to naturally react negatively which will have a tendency to push the new residents back out.
Jobs are difficult to find. Especially finding a job that you enjoy. So how in the heck would we find a job for every poor person? We might be able to find menial labor jobs for them – but if they don’t like it (anymore than many of us would) they’re not going to feel inclined to stick with it.
So, poverty seems to be eternal. Even if upon the minute chance that our economical society somehow managed to even things out enough to where poverty was no longer the inner city slums of jobless inhabitants, there would still be poverty. The definition would just change to include the lowest end of the spectrucm.
Poverty should not be confused with “lower income” which encases working folks that don’t make that much (or enough to buy that 2nd car). Lower income is not limited to one particular area of habitation. It can be found in the suburbs as well as the cities. Lower income citizens represent a key portion of the society. They work, but also receive extra help from the government. They do not RELY solely on the government however – unlike poverty-stricken people. They pay taxes and therefore are benefiting from the money they put into the government. If we were somewhow able to upgrade the poverty-stricken to the “lower income” level and also somehow made them STAY there. Poverty as we know it would be eventually eliminated and the definition would change.
But as of now, I see poverty remaining the way it is for a very very long time.
-
February 23, 2009 at 10:30 am #2768748
There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
by oz_media · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
…it isn’t run by Max Edison, the true knowledge of what it takes to run a government. Sigh, what a wasted talent, and they couldn’t find you when it came to seeking out presidential nominees?
Its interestng actually, I just watched a docu on poverty and how imperative it is to support poverty stricken nations that we rely on in order to feed our town.
Firstly, poverty breeds disease. Any country suffering severe poverty, also has a major problem of losing its population to disease. We rely on the growers and workers in Africa and many other poverty stricken countries to provide us with many of our imports. It is in our best interests to aide Africa and others to help keep their population healthy, able to work and provide for us in return.
If our resources begin to dwindle, then we in turn start succumb to poverty too.
I know this is extremely simplistic and doesn’t cover specifics you had asked about, but I think the issue needs to be considered on a much broader spectrum than mere internal affairs, the definition of poverty etc. that most people seem focused on.
It cannot be denied that America is 100% reliant on the rest of the world in order to maintain its economic status.
On that same note, those other countries rely on US dollars to support thier own economy.
The domino effect is in play, and it takes a far broader scope than one definition of poverty over another, internal affairs or anything else ‘internal’ as the sole solution.
A global effort and solution is needed, a much broader view, even to simply stabilize the US economy itself.
[i]And finally, is the goal of assisting those living in poverty best left to the private sector to address, or is government involvement more effective? Is it better addressed on larger scales or smaller?”[/i]
Poverty in your neighbourhood may be assisted by the private sector, if your neighbourhood is small. But poverty on a national basis takes global effort, nothing you can do as an individual country on that one. With only 2 years to go before a massive change to mankind, its time to start looking at a much bigger picture, I think.
The end is near, we are all doooooooooomed!
]:)-
February 23, 2009 at 10:50 am #2768733
Please spare me the sarcasm
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
There will always be (problems) in this (world) as long as it isn’t run by (Oz_Media), the true knowledge of what it takes to run (everything).
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=302419&messageID=3020975
-
February 23, 2009 at 12:49 pm #2768664
I see
by oz_media · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Please spare me the sarcasm
so sarcasm is left for you only, fair enough, expected as much anyway.
as for the rest of the post, which looks upon the US economy and global economic struggles as a global issue, I suppose I lost you with my simplicity and lack of redefinition of all the terms used.
Why seek definition instead of awareness and global solutions?
From what I can see in the post you linked to, for what reason I am still unsure, you are simply looking to tear apart definition in order to make it seem like more of the same, with a different name.
I don’t suppose you are trying to discount the reality of global economic crisis though, yet you are rarely too clear with your intentions.
-
February 23, 2009 at 1:02 pm #2768656
A few things
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I see
First of all, the current global economic issues are another matter entirely. I didn’t intend for the original message – a series of questions, really – to be tied into anything except an underlying question about the causes of and solutions for poverty – generally speaking. The reasons for you to segue that into an issue about the current economic situation is beyond me, nor do I care to go there right now.
Second of all, I linked to my other message because it answered the questions I asked in the first.
Third of all, your sarcasm comes across as a direct slam against me, and quite frankly, it’s quite tiring. I thought we were beyond it, but I guess I was mistaken.
Okay, Oz, slam away.
-
February 23, 2009 at 1:34 pm #2764216
Another matter entirely?
by boxfiddler · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to A few things
Being rather intricately linked, even to some degree dependent upon the rest of the globe, I see no distinction.
-
February 23, 2009 at 2:51 pm #2764179
I see nothing in my original message. . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Another matter entirely?
…..that directly links the current economic situation with addressing poverty. If anyone else sees it, no link was intended.
Let’s see, my original message started with a quote (from an unknown source) that was rather thought provoking, and I thought I’d throw it out for discussion.
About the only comment I made was expressing my opinion that President Johnson’s [i]War on Poverty[/i] has been a failure, and we should devise an exit strategy.
Otherwise, I asked about a dozen questions, none of which were about the current economic situation, and all of which were about how to define poverty, the kinds of poverty, and other general underlying questions about it. I didn’t answer them myself in the original message, nor were they leading.
For Oz to segue into a rant about the global economic crisis and how the United States sucks (what else is new?), it didn’t do anything to answer any of the questions – especially when he opened with yet another insult aimed at me. (His preferred sport around here.)
But actually, since you mention it, I suppose there is actually a link between the current economic crisis and the, so called, [i]War on Poverty[/i].
Since 1964 when those programs first went into effect (and later expanded upon), we’ve spent upwards of 12 trillion dollars – [b]an amount equal to our entire national debt![/b] on programs funding poverty. And for what? It didn’t eliminate a poverty class. It only created a dependent class. Moreover, in the United States, the percentage of citizens living below the poverty line had DECLINED every decade (with the exception of the 1930s) since the Civil War. Poverty was in decline, and most importantly people were lifting themselves out of it WITHOUT government help and without simply becoming dependent. The poverty level (as defined at the time) had actually dropped from 23 percent in 1958 to 19 percent in 1964, continuing its historical downward trend. The funds provided by the [i]War on Poverty[/i] did drop the level to the 12 percent range, where it’s been ever since. (The definition and thresholds of [i]poverty[/i] are another matter.)
If you think about it, however, the only reason for that drastic drop was not that the circumstances changed so that the trend of people lifting themselves out of poverty continued, but rather it provided a flow of money so they didn’t have to. It simply gave them more money (government money) to skew the statistics in favor of more people [i]earning[/i] enough to be counted above the line. But they didn’t [i]earn[/i] anything, it was given to them. The natural and self-caused downward trend was abruptly halted, and a dependent class had been created.
Look at ALL of the underlying statistics attached to those living in poverty: drug use, single-parent homes, unwed mothers, absent fathers, teenagers having babies, gangs, school dropouts – ALL of them have drastically INCREASED since the government started funding poverty.
And I suppose our current mortgage and banking crisis could also be blamed, in large part, to yet another government attempt to make people more dependent, and to get more people into home ownership than otherwise would be. In 1964, a mortgage was one of the most secure loans a banker could make. None of them would dream of loaning mortgage money to someone who couldn’t prove an ability to repay. But that was before government started funding more poverty programs. From the late 1970s into the 2000s, because of government guarantees on loans for people who otherwise wouldn’t qualify, and because of government pressure to force more of such loans, we now see the house of cards tumbling down because of bad mortgages. (It’s so easy blaming greedy mortgage executives. Yea, right!)
As to Oz’s message, I truly don’t think it’s possible for him to answer some general questions without finding a way to tie them into yet another slam America or insult Maxwell tirade. Out of the 90, or so, replies to the original message, he was the first to do it – and the first to see the alleged link between my original message and the current underlying economic situation. But now that the link has been established, I gave my take on it.
Let the politically motivated flames begin!
-
February 23, 2009 at 4:02 pm #2764137
No, you aren’t a hypocrite at all.
by oz_media · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I see nothing in my original message. . . . .
[i]”For Oz to segue into a rant about the global economic crisis and how the United States sucks (what else is new?), it didn’t do anything to answer any of the questions – especially when he opened with yet another insult aimed at me. (His preferred sport around here.) “[/i]
First of all, I am obviously not the only one who saw relationship. Instead of discussing this possibility you throw it out as me [i]”ranting about the current global economic crisis and how the United States sucks”[/i].
Please, while on the bandwagon of definitions you seek, [b]define rant[/b] and show me the passage where I mentioned [i]the United States sucks[/i]. In fact I equated your needs to our own, and said NOTHING derogatory about the USA in any way at all, except for in your own skewed vision.
I wait patiently for your insight and proof of your rash allegations, however it will suit you more to simply say you have had enough and don’t find it worthy of your time, again being quite predictable.
[i]”he opened with yet another insult aimed at me. (His preferred sport around here.) [/i]
I said “There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
…it isn’t run by Max Edison, the true knowledge of what it takes to run a government.”How is that an insult of ANY kind? It is only an insult if you see it as sarcasm, however the exact same phrase can be quite complimentary, intoning that your wisdom could resolve such issues, its your choice to decipher you choose of course, just like everything else you read.
However, your speaking to a third party and commenting on my habits and intents in such a negative manner is definitely an insult to me.
The the hypocrisy in your lame pursuit of mental superiority is hideous.
[i]”As to Oz’s message, I truly don’t think it’s possible for him to answer some general questions without finding a way to tie them into yet another slam America or insult Maxwell tirade. Out of the 90, or so, replies to the original message, he was the first to do it – and the first to see the alleged link between my original message and the current underlying economic situation.
Is it? out of 90mreplies I was teh first to slam America? Again, how do you read things like that when they are not said?
You didn’t take the other 90 replies and use the same yardstick on them did you? Again illustrating your personal bias towards myself.
[b]But now that the link has been established,[/b] I gave my take on it”[/i]
So you admit you have great bias when reading my comments, in fact clearly so much so that you are blinded into a single, negative view towards anything I say.
You accept someone else seeing the relation, but from me it is anti-American ranting.
Yet you deem me shallow and on an undying misison to degrade America with a single, biased focus, which I haven’t shown in my comments but you clearly display on your own bias.
[i]
“I truly don’t think it’s possible for him to answer some general questions without finding a way to tie them into yet another slam America or insult Maxwell tirade. “[/i]“Slam America” and “tirade”, great words! How are they applicable to my post? It was neither a slam on America nor a Maxwell tirade.
You just make it up as you go (and dig the hole deeper in the process) instead of just saying, ‘oooops, maybe I read it wrong and got the wrong impression’, as you clearly did.
This is a pi$$ing contest YOU’Ve created now, not me.
I offered a simple comment and explained how I saw it related to your original post, you saw that as an attack on America [i](somehow, or simply due to your personal bias against myself)[/i], and have said how you read everything I say that way.
I’ll reneg my first comments, I think it takes someone much more aware of his surroundings to reduce poverty and economic struggle, or two different people because the two issues are clearly unrelated, or so I am now told.
-
February 23, 2009 at 5:24 pm #2764120
Oz – I commented to that particular [i]third party[/i] because. . . .
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I see nothing in my original message. . . . .
…..that same [i]third party[/i] commented on the dialogue between you and me, apparently supporting you.
Nonetheless, you should really settle down. You’re bordering on being extremely mean-spirited – just like you’ve been to jdclyde, sleepin’dawg, JamesRL,……
-
February 23, 2009 at 8:31 pm #2764075
I didn’t ask
by oz_media · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I see nothing in my original message. . . . .
But thanks for teh 2 cents anyway.
As for being mean spirited, you and your friends can have and hold your opinions close to keep you warm if need be. Its always one sided from yoru court anyway.
One person was trolling ever post I made and I got fed up with it.
Another person has a history of purposely being a loser and pi$$ing me off, not your problem either.
I agreed with the other person who felt a need to continuously reiterate his stand even though I had not said otherwise and therefore I was somewhat condescending, which is acceptable when it is coming from you.
So have a nice evening and find a better way to pass your time other than seeking conflict with everything I say.
You made false assertions about me that were shown incorrect and you couldn’t/didn’t support them, when called on that your only response is to talk about people that I have had differences with?
Moderator Max? Give it up already, its a pathetic game and I’m not playing.
-
February 23, 2009 at 8:36 pm #2764073
That particular third party
by boxfiddler · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I see nothing in my original message. . . . .
wasn’t supporting anyone. Current economic issues are global issues, just as poverty is a global issue.
Governments can’t do away with poverty, economic systems can’t do away with poverty.
Poverty is a naturally occurring force that shapes life, not to mention the planet that supports that life.
I support a larger view in most things, which occasionally get me nailed for generalism. Whatthefuckever.
-
February 24, 2009 at 1:39 am #2764002
The way I see it Oz. . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I see nothing in my original message. . . . .
…..you started this with the first sentence of your first message. As far as those other guys, I was merely making an observation.
-
February 24, 2009 at 8:46 am #2764543
Once again, I didn’t ask
by oz_media · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I see nothing in my original message. . . . .
“I said “There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
…it isn’t run by Max Edison, the true knowledge of what it takes to run a government.”How is that an insult of ANY kind? It is only an insult if you see it as sarcasm, however the exact same phrase can be quite complimentary, intoning that your wisdom could resolve such issues, its your choice to decipher you choose of course, just like everything else you read.”
Pull your pants up under your armpits and have a laugh for Christ’s sake, get over yourself.
-
February 23, 2009 at 3:44 pm #2764148
So clever
by oz_media · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to A few things
As always, nice little blocker at the end too, how immature.
I welcome your rebuttal.
You do nto see poverty and the current global economic situation as tied together to teh point of being one and the same? One breeds the other and, as I noted myself, poverty in one small nation can lead to economic struggle for the entire planet.
But if you wish to discuss the definition of darkness without recognizing absence of light is directly related to the cause of darkness, then you go ahead.
-
February 23, 2009 at 4:08 pm #2764135
No,
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to So clever
[i]You do nto see poverty and the current global economic situation as tied together to teh point of being one and the same?[/i]
because poverty existed even in the best of economic times.
-
February 23, 2009 at 4:24 pm #2764128
Okay
by oz_media · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to No,
That’s a pretty simlistic view of reality but its at least a view.
So when poverty results in disease (the two are intricately tied together)in third world countries and raises the price of goods on your store shelves, reduces the amount of goods available to you for import, increases the chance of disease introduced through such imports, you do not see a relation between the current economic struggle and poverty?
By donating funds to help teh sick and diseased in third world countries, you are in turn protecting your own investments, foreign workers.
Without foreign workers you have no foreign imports, or at least affordable foreign imports, which you rely on so badly.
The economy and global welfare/poverty is VERY cloesly tied.
-
February 23, 2009 at 5:01 pm #2764124
-
February 23, 2009 at 6:49 pm #2764104
-
February 23, 2009 at 8:34 pm #2764074
Domino effect
by oz_media · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to No,
Seeing as one feeds the other, they are very directly related, some even see the current state of poverty and economic weakness as leading to the predicted major changing of mankind in 2010. Not myself but I do see how these issues are all linked together and not just one nation’s problem or solution.
-
February 24, 2009 at 6:50 am #2763940
What you’re talking about,
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to No,
since the poorest can’t really fall much farther, is people hanging on to what wealth they have.
Some of them deserve to lose it, and will get no sympathy from me… the piper has to be paid. Others will lose too, but have the wherewithal to pick themselves up, dust themselves off and start again. They will be the future leaders. They don’t want or need sympathy.
-
February 24, 2009 at 11:30 am #2764449
Tony
by oz_media · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to No,
Not even the same planet yet alone the same page.
Here’s an example I just gave Max.
You have 5% of the world’s population, yet consume over 25% of the world’s resources.
This illustrates just how independent you are NOT.
If you rely on Africa for grains, and African workers all die from sickness and disease, that effects the price of beans on yoru grocery stores. YOUR cost of living rises and your expendable income is reduced proportionately.
A closer to home example:
Lets say Canada was a poor nation, responsible for supplying 60% of your oil imports.
We are poor, and thus sickness/disease follows (fact). We have a reduced capable labour force, therefore our export costs rise and your import costs rise.
If your import costs rise, so does the price of gas at US pumps. Your gas becomes more expensive, you have less disposable income from each paycheck, reducing your quality of life and putting many people below the poverty level.
Simple, right?
So the health and welfare of those who provide your resources, directly impacts YOUR quality of life, your relative poverty level.
Its so black and white, I wonder why Americans can’t see the light?!
If you were completely resource indpenedent, I’d agree that your economic issues are solely internal, but you are not independent, no matter what the Constitution says.
It’s no different than if Microsoft workers all got sick, how much would Windows cost in Canada?
If your own workers get sick or disease spreads through a workforce, you need to make adjustments in order to maintain an even economy.
So how is it so hard to see that, being reliant on so many other nations to feed and clothe you, that thier health and welfare is not directly related to your economic stability?
-
February 24, 2009 at 12:40 pm #2764398
Actually
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to No,
we only consume 25% of the world’s oil and natural gas. We have plenty of grain (the government even pays farmers NOT to grow it… A bad policy, I admit… which is why I DON’T trust the government to do what’s in the best interest of anyone except the government.)
-
February 24, 2009 at 1:02 pm #2764389
We also
by santeewelding · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to No,
Process our own turds. Probably a lot else of self-containment going on, as you point out, too.
-
February 24, 2009 at 1:26 pm #2764378
The US imports Canadian wheat and barley
by oz_media · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to No,
Many US farms were ‘set aside’ for production of bio fuels. As a result teh US buys a great quantity of Canadian wheat from Saskatchewan and barley from central and eastern Canadian provinces.
This is a big issue for US farmers, thought you would have heard about it by now, but the US still imports these supplies from Canada. In fact 56% of American farmland is used for cattle production, not grains, vegetables etc. Out of your minimal production, eighty percent of the corn grown and 95% of the oats are fed to livestock. This leaves your farms providing only 20% of thier production to US consumers. Not enough to feed such a gluttonous and wasteful society by any means.
I am not saying Canadians don’t waste energy or food but in the American desire to be bigger and richer, the mentality results in a lot more wasted resources from the US than other nations.
You are correct in that you consume a quarter of the world’s “energy” resources, which also includes hydro electric power from British Columbia. We have had water shortages so that the wtaer sheds remain full for US (California specifically) Hydro consumption.
The fact that you grow much of your own grain is irrelevant, you produce a lot of your own oil too, but you still import a great deal as you live in a country of consumption, over consumtion to be more exact.
some figures, though a few years old: http://www.mindfully.org/Sustainability/Americans-Consume-24percent.htm
Material world statistics: http://www.mindfully.org/Resource/Material-World-Statistics.htm
Interesting anyway, though I am sure many Americans would deny the reality of it all.
-
February 23, 2009 at 6:41 pm #2764106
Oz – My reply
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to So clever
You said, [i]”You do not see poverty and the current global economic situation as tied together to the point of being one and the same?”[/i]
Poverty and the economic crisis being [i]one in the same[/i]? Are you suggesting that the [i]War on Poverty[/i] caused the current economic crisis? Or are you suggesting the mere presence of poverty caused it? Please make your case.
Please elaborate. What, exactly, are you suggesting?
You said, [i]”One breeds the other and, as I noted myself, poverty in one small nation can lead to economic struggle for the entire planet.”[/i]
Please, give me a break. Abject poverty in some interior African nation has absolutely no affect on the economy of the United States. If you disagree, I’d welcome your reasoning.
You said, [i]”But if you wish to discuss the definition of darkness without recognizing absence of light is directly related to the cause of darkness, then you go ahead.”[/i]
No, what I wanted to discuss was the difference between abject poverty and relative poverty. Light, or the absence thereof, has nothing to do with it.
-
February 23, 2009 at 8:42 pm #2764072
Poverty
by oz_media · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oz – My reply
Poverty results in increased sickness and disease.
Povety in nations that we rely on for our daily means, results in reduced production of our imported goods due to a dwindlng, capable labour force.
A reduction in our imports means greater prices for our imports, which equates to a great deal of our daily needs.
Increased costs create poverty in our own nations, poverty creates greater risk of sickness and a reduced mortality rate amongst our own people; this is due to greater risk of disease transmission from imported goods, as well as reduced expendible income and thus a reduced ability to provde proper care for our families and ourselves.
The inability to pay for such imports increase poverty levels in other countries we rely on but who also rely on our purchasing thier exports, which further reduces our available products, which further increases our costs, which further increases our poverty, which further increases our risks sickness and diseases and so on.
Poverty in other nations has a very direct impact on our own poverty level, our health and our economy as a whole. Is it instantaneous? No, but the trickle down effect is undeniable.
-
February 24, 2009 at 1:17 am #2764005
I was primarily asking about [i]this country[/i]
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oz – My reply
[i]Abject[/i] poverty in third-world countries is one issue, [i]relative[/i] poverty in this one is another.
-
February 24, 2009 at 8:55 am #2764538
Okay, open the other eye then
by oz_media · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oz – My reply
Abject poverty in other countries is exactly what contributes to relative poverty in your own country. That’s the whole point.
You aren’t running around looking for rice with your unicef bowl. But the constantly rising cost of imported goods to teh US certainly has had a very negative effect on your nation, as well as ours. Where I work, we conduct business with many American companies. They import products for sale in North America, so YOUR prices have skyrocketed and so have ours as a result.
Example: the cost of US imports rises, tthus th ecost of OUR products rises, in which case our housing costs rise instantly. You import low votage wire from Brazil, tha wire then faces greater markup due to the US dollar, that is again marked up when it enters Canada, by the time teh builder buys it, the cost of the home goes up. The owners spend more for thier home and have greater debt. Sure, if they had a US mortgage that debt is pretty much irrelevant but up here you have to pay the bills.
If we buy less Brazillian wire, YOU buys less Brazillian wire, if YOU buy less Brazillian wire they earn less and it increases thier poverty level. Increased poverty in Brazil means greater illness and fewer workers. Fewer workers means that wire costs more, which directly inflouences the price of a new home.
Your increased cost of living directly increases our cost of living. As two different countries we are the most reliant on trade and have the greatest amount of trade and economic dependency on one another, definitely moreso than any other nation on the planet, so much so that we are an example of how international trade can create very powerful alliances while still retaining national sovreignity.
So as far as relative poverty, the change in the cost of living a comfortable life in America and Canada, is directly related to abject poverty in third world countries.
I really thought you had a more encompassing view of reality than that. Your view of an isolated, relative poverty is completely devoid of the connection.
There is a VERY direct connection, one that you seem to convneniently ignore or pretend doesn’t exist at all as it doesn’t suit your previous conclusion.
-
February 24, 2009 at 10:08 am #2764499
Oz, my eyes are open – very wide
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Oz – My reply
I thought I’d provide my long answer in a new thread.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=302419&messageID=3022135
-
-
-
February 23, 2009 at 11:12 am #2768724
The other problem
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
few people who are not wealthy even understand the concept of wealth or how it is acquired. Give them a bonus, and they’ll buy a lavish bauble, rather than use the bonus as a seed that will grow and enrich not only their life but that of their descendants as well. And it’s not something you can force someone to learn. They either get it or they don’t.
So for those who don’t get it, are we supposed to keep giving them bonuses so that they can continue to waste it on baubles?
-
February 23, 2009 at 12:06 pm #2768691
what is it?
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
[i]President Johnson’s War on Poverty, in my opinion, needs an exit strategy. What should it be?[/i]
Make those capable of working…work.
Support those who have no means or ability (and I mean NONE) to support themselves.
Give nothing to those who will not work who can.
Starvation and homelessness and death is the greatest motivator to get off your ass there is.
[i]Can government eliminate poverty? If so, how? If not, why try?[/i]
Yes, but it would be in a way that too many would find too harsh. It’s called: true responsibility.
[i]Has the definition of poverty changed over time?[/i]
Since poverty is a level based on income versus expense, yes. It changes moment to moment, location by location, person to person.
[i]How do you define poverty, in abject terms or relative terms?[/i]
Poverty is relative to too many factors to line out briefly here
[i]Is the aforementioned War on Poverty waged against abject poverty or relative poverty? If the answer is relative poverty, is waging it an effort in futility? And if the answer is abject poverty, how much of that would really exist in our country (or your country) if left to its own accord?[/i]
It is waged against [b]all[/b] poverty in a blanket fashion that will never work.
And, it is an effort in futility so long as you do not make those who can work do something for their check rather than to let them sit around on the post office steps the first working day of a month to collect a check.
[i]And finally, is the goal of assisting those living in poverty best left to the private sector to address, or is government involvement more effective? Is it better addressed on larger scales or smaller?[/i]
Neither. It would be best left to themselves.
If they can work, tell them “work a job we have for you, or don’t get a check at all and starve.”
Take the money saved and put it into more law enforcement and criminal justice. Punish those who would commit crime to make money instead of working a day labor job or a low job they think is beneath them to do.
This country needs to get its head out of its butt, and finally tell people on welfare:
The settlers of Jamestown had it right; if you are able and will not work and your family will not feed you, then you will starve. And if you commit a crime of theft to eat or drink and are caught, you are summarily and strictly punished for it. No exceptions. You have no right to use someone else to work for you to earn your way, unless you have no ability to do so.
Small children and infirmed elderly should not have to work. Otherwise, get off your ass.
-
February 23, 2009 at 1:52 pm #2764206
Wow?!
by dwdino · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to what is it?
JCK,
For the first time in remembered history, I must, without reservation, applaud your response.
OK, 1 check in the positive column and … well, good job.
-
February 23, 2009 at 2:07 pm #2764199
Yep.
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to what is it?
We are individuals, with individual wants and needs. For the government to shove us all into their neat little boxes is a disservice to all of us.
-
February 23, 2009 at 6:52 pm #2764103
-
February 23, 2009 at 7:19 pm #2764097
Would never happen
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to what is it?
To many bleeding hearts for a reasonable amount of personal responsibility to be expected.
The bleeding hearts would talk about how it is “inhumain” to allow someone/anyone to go without, followed by crap about the “less fortunate”.
It is the right thing to do, but will never happen.
[b]
“Don’t feed the animals”.[/b] is not a sign hung up to be “mean” to animals but for their own good.-
February 25, 2009 at 8:00 am #2765037
one thing you need to point out then to “bleeding hearts”
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Would never happen
impoverished doesn’t mean you’re unable to work.
try telling them that.
i still say let people who won’t work for their welfare check starve.
if someone tries to work and holds a job and is still starving…then help them.
God helps those who helps themselves…and so do I. 🙂
-
February 25, 2009 at 8:54 am #2764982
Logic gets you no where with the overyly emotional
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to one thing you need to point out then to “bleeding hearts”
Because they don’t THINK, they FEEL.
A big part of the problem in the world today.
-
February 25, 2009 at 9:36 am #2764946
really?
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Logic gets you no where with the overyly emotional
well, the head bleeding heart you criticize so much without giving him a chance sure does think a lot.
btw, notice the stock market has been going up now?
notice that his approval rating is still above 60% despite a bill loaded by both sides with pork??
btw…a lot of cost in this world is by people who think…and think they know what they’re doing, when they really don’t.
oh well. i guess unless you’ve been convicted of drunk driving, called your wife a c*** in front of the press, or let your kids travel free for personal use on the state-paid-for transportation…you’re just not worthy of leading a country…are you?
well i’m off. i’m gonna go get a wife and cheat on her and then join the libertarian party.
-
-
February 24, 2009 at 12:58 am #2764012
Well there is the line that says it all :)
by rob mekel · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to what is it?
“Take the money saved and put it into more law enforcement and criminal justice. Punish those who would commit crime to make money instead of working”
Oops, btw, … isn’t law enforcement a task of government AND citizens, who let the force-side of that to the authorities.
[b]Mmm, so after all you do agree: War on poverty is not to be left to the private sector[/b] :p 😀 😉-
February 24, 2009 at 7:33 pm #2764257
It’s not the same thing at all.
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Well there is the line that says it all :)
Poverty does not increase the crime rate significantly. What he’s saying (I think) is take money away from something the government shouldn’t be doing (benefiting individuals) and apply it to something they SHOULD be doing (benefiting everyone).
-
February 25, 2009 at 6:44 am #2765096
Who am I
by rob mekel · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It’s not the same thing at all.
to say whether what you believe he is saying is what he means to say.
All I can do is read what he says take his conclusions … take his arguments put them to his conclusions and see what logicaly happens …
Take the money of from “War on poverty …” [i]your individuals[/i]
Put it to “Law enforcement” [i]your benefiting everyone[/i]As law enforcement is a task we put in the hands of police … government … that is unless we (on election day) deside to change that.
Hence my “Oops … ” realizing that the money and control is still to the government to spend.
to make totaslly clear on were I stand:
I’m not in favour of a government spending money on individuals. I’m even less in favour of a government that gives money to private companies to let them to deside that to money is spend on bonuses for the few.
I’m all for a governement that spends [u]our[/u] money to the benifit of all -
February 25, 2009 at 7:52 am #2765044
Then
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Who am I
we’re nearly perfectly aligned.
Perhaps you’d agree that we should completely un-tax businesses, since they only include that tax in the cost of their goods and services anyway.
-
February 25, 2009 at 8:23 am #2765018
i’d support that
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Then
if you also forced, by law, business to remove all of that cost from the price they are charging for…including eliminating jobs of people who are hired to calculate those taxes and report them, maintain systems that do that for the companies, etc.
if you’re saying government can’t have the taxes
then you must be willing to tell the private enterprise they are not entitled to a dime of what they did not earn either.
otherwise, it will just become more profit margin for them and people will get no benefit from it.
hence if you don’t support it, then you are proposing taking those monies they don’t pay in taxes (which supports programs for many) and putting it in the pockets of the shareholders (which is the few)
Are you willing to say you’d mandate they remove all that from their bottom line if business tax was removed, including the overhead of handling/accounting for it, and guaranteeing that what would be everyone’s tax money benefit not become money being given to “the individual” or “the few”?
-
February 25, 2009 at 9:02 am #2764973
It would be self-correcting
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to i’d support that
[i]if you also forced, by law, business to remove all of that cost from the price they are charging for[/i]
Failure to do so will cause a loss of market share when your competitor does it 🙂
-
February 25, 2009 at 9:54 am #2764939
i doubt it would self-correct
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to i’d support that
if it would, by the method you state, Wal-Mart and Microsoft would have similarly-prominent business peers in their markets.
Your hypothesis is therefore invalid.
Just because business gets a tax break does not mean those monies get to the consumer directly. Quite often, those are taken as profits and…as I stated…paid to the relatively few rather than being focused toward the public.
That’s why “trickle-down economics” of the Reagan era ended up being a failure. Letting the elite have the benefits does not assure you that the people down the ladder will benefit as well.
The people at the top are not required to spend their money.
Remember that.
-
February 25, 2009 at 12:02 pm #2763163
Not necessarily.
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to i’d support that
[/i]if it would, by the method you state, Wal-Mart and Microsoft would have similarly-prominent business peers in their markets.[/i]
Walmart built a better mousetrap and everybody’s playing catch up. They have low prices that customers want, and their service is top notch. Their detractors point to cheap foreign labor and anti union policies as bad things. I don’t. Sure, they have some shoddy item that I wouldn’t buy…. so I don’t. They don’t force me to either, and have always gladly accepted my return when I have discovered a shoddy item.
In Microsoft’s case, there are competitors, but nobody wants them! You aren’t suggesting that people be FORCED to buy something to even things out, are you? That would be akin to the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”, which aims to FORCE people to pay for broadcasting they don’t want. Perhaps we aren’t as aligned as I thought.
[i]That’s why “trickle-down economics” of the Reagan era ended up being a failure. Letting the elite have the benefits does not assure you that the people down the ladder will benefit as well.[/i]
Perhaps, but taking it from them will all but guarantee that it doesn’t (in the worst case, the big kids will just pick up all their toys and leave!). There ARE no guarantees, there are only opportunities.
Try, yes, absolutely, everyone should have the right to try, but to demand to have a portion of the piece of meat that I hunted down and killed is not going to fly with me… Ask, yes. Demand, hell no! If you had, say, six extra bedrooms, how would you respond to “demands” from people that you allow them to sleep there?
Try to survive, yes, but if you can’t, you shouldn’t!
[i]he people at the top are not required to spend their money.
[/i]Nor is anyone else. But unless they put it in a coffee can and bury it, that money is going to be put to work… Other people will borrow it, spend it, invest it and thus create opportunities…
-
February 26, 2009 at 6:28 am #2762511
you still are assuming
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to i’d support that
that the wealthy will let go of that money.
[i] Walmart built a better mousetrap and everybody’s playing catch up. They have low prices that customers want, and their service is top notch. Their detractors point to cheap foreign labor and anti union policies as bad things. I don’t. Sure, they have some shoddy item that I wouldn’t buy…. so I don’t. They don’t force me to either, and have always gladly accepted my return when I have discovered a shoddy item.[/i]
First of all: Wal-Mart’s service…top notch? What have you been smoking?
You go into any Wal-Mart down here, you might have 1 or 2 friendly people around but most workers are underpaid and just there to make sure they get their pennies.
I went in a Wal-Mart 4 blocks from my house once to get a digital camera. I asked the lady if they had one. She wouldn’t not even double check for me.
So, I walked out and went home and ordered one online.
That’s real top notch service, I got. She wouldn’t even open the doors on a cabinet to look for me and make sure.
Thanks for treating me like a valued customer.
Second: No one can play catch up to Wal-Mart.
Why?
Because Wal-Mart locks down agreements on price that no one else can get. Period.
How do they do that?
Wal-Mart, being as close to a monopoly as you’ll see in the retail market, does not let vendors/manufacturers come in and tell them what they will sell the item to Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart [b]tells them[/b] what the price is they will pay. If the vendor doesn’t want to sell it, Wal-Mart goes to a Chinese firm and has them make something similar to put in stores.
Example: Rubbermaid Corporation. They used to be the only thing that Wal-Mart sold in plastic containers. Wal-Mart then dictated the price they’d pay for it to Rubbermaid, and Rubbermaid would have gone out of business to sell it to them that cheap. So when Rubbermaid refused, Wal-Mart pulled all their product off the shelves and replaced it with cheap knock-offs like Sterilite and other cheap brands.
Wal-Mart has, in essence, taken advantage of overwhelming market control to the point that they control the price point both in acquisitions and sales.
If Microsoft was to do that, they would be charged with anti-competition violations.
And btw…I don’t shop at Wal-Mart if I don’t have to…period. Their products aren’t that great, and the good name brands they do carry I can get cheaper elsewhere.
So, I do.
[i] In Microsoft’s case, there are competitors, but nobody wants them! You aren’t suggesting that people be FORCED to buy something to even things out, are you? That would be akin to the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”, which aims to FORCE people to pay for broadcasting they don’t want. Perhaps we aren’t as aligned as I thought.[/i]
Really?
Read my statement again about a peer who is on the same level.
Who else has a 67.55% browser market share?
Who else has a 80+% operating system share?
Who else has 75+% PC gaming products share?Answer: No one.
And btw, how can it not be a conflict of interest that Bill Gates sits on the board of companies like HP and other companies who make products that work with his OS?
I’d like to be in on the meetings to give direction so things made my paycheck bigger.
[i] Perhaps, but taking it from them will all but guarantee that it doesn’t (in the worst case, the big kids will just pick up all their toys and leave!). There ARE no guarantees, there are only opportunities.[/i]
Not taking taxes also guarantees one other thing: failure of the country’s infrastructure.
How else are you going to fund things? Good looks?
[i] Try, yes, absolutely, everyone should have the right to try, but to demand to have a portion of the piece of meat that I hunted down and killed is not going to fly with me… Ask, yes. Demand, hell no! If you had, say, six extra bedrooms, how would you respond to “demands” from people that you allow them to sleep there?[/i]
I’d allow the hot babes that asked me to sleep in them. 😀
So you’ve never demanded anything from anyone else? More money in pay for your work? A refund at a store?
[i] Try to survive, yes, but if you can’t, you shouldn’t![/i]
So if all your retirement accounts crashed, you lost your job and couldn’t get another, and you couldn’t pay for everything you have and lost it…you should just curl up in a ball and die and starve?
You make it sound like anyone can do anything, as long as they just try. In a perfect world, that is a possibility.
Here’s an example tho of how trying to improve your life doesn’t always happen just because you work hard.
My parents worked for years, saved up and all, and were doing well.
My father had gone back to college and was working on finishing his engineering degree when I was a baby. He was working his butt off to finish it in 2 years.
Then, my brother got brain cancer.
I guess Dad didn’t try hard enough, or he could have just got it plus taken care of a sick kid, and 3 other kids while my mother worked and paid off $400,000 of medical bills right away…right?
Right? As long as you try, you can do anything?
Life doesn’t always go as planned. Years of hard work can be shot down in a matter of 9 months. Just ask my parents.
[i] Nor is anyone else. But unless they put it in a coffee can and bury it, that money is going to be put to work… Other people will borrow it, spend it, invest it and thus create opportunities…[/i]
Bullshit.
They put it in accounts? No bank is required to loan it.
They put it offshore? No jobs are created here.
They put it in Cayman or Swiss accounts? No jobs created here.
You *assume* that the wealthy are going to invest/spend/give/donate/hire here.
But when you look at those two big companies above:
Microsoft just laid off hundreds of people (mostly in Washington) in this country. They didn’t lay off one person in India.
Wal-Mart buys 99.98% of their retail product from China, and over 70% of all products in their stores (including food products).
How does this represent big money corporations investing, as you say they do, in growing America? Where is this prosperity? Where is the return that we all get from the wealthy being allowed to grow wealth?
Wal-Mart has kept its profits up, yet are they growing more jobs in this country? Not unless it’s someone who will stock shelves and push carts for minimum wage.
They are making sure all the manufacturing jobs go overseas.
They have moved their international shipping coordination center to China, so they are moving professional jobs overseas now.
What’s next? Will we have to order online from China?
Again, the wealthy don’t get wealthy by “spreadin the wealth” as you propose they do.
When do they hire? When it makes them even richer.
When do they pay more? When someone makes them richer.
It has nothing to do with the wealthy being innately philanthropic with their desires to grow the broad-based economy.
It has to do with looking out only for themselves.
So if you’re going to base economic growth on the fact the wealthy will distribute it, then you are also indirectly pushing the agenda of class separation in our society.
I make a lot…I give you a little…tough cookies if you don’t like it. Suffer, pleeb.
Yep, that’s the American way.
-
February 26, 2009 at 8:10 am #2762433
Maybe…
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to i’d support that
[i]First of all: Wal-Mart’s service…top notch? What have you been smoking?[/i]
… it’s the quality of the employee pool in your area, and not the company itself. When I go there, I can’t get within 20 feet of an employee without them asking if they can help me.
[i]You go into any Wal-Mart down here, you might have 1 or 2 friendly people around but most workers are underpaid and just there to make sure they get their pennies.
[/i]The employees I know about fall into 3 categories…
Students, still living at home with their parents… How much do they really need?
Retired people, supplementing their retirement or social security… same question.
People (I know 10 or 12 of these personally) working there as a second job to help pay for a special expense. They tell me the company treats them really well, they bend over backwards to accommodate your schedule, and the wages are competitive with others in the area for similar work.
[i]I went in a Wal-Mart 4 blocks from my house once to get a digital camera. I asked the lady if they had one. She wouldn’t not even double check for me.
So, I walked out and went home and ordered one online.[/i]
I’m sorry you had that experience. If I’m looking for something specific, I can go online and check if it’s at the store before I even leave.
[i]Second: No one can play catch up to Wal-Mart.
Why?
Because Wal-Mart locks down agreements on price that no one else can get. Period.[/i]
I shop convenience, and pay attention to prices, so if I’m in Walmart, and I know something’s cheaper somewhere else, I’ll show them the ad and they’ll match it. Lowe’s, Target, and K-mart all do the same thing, so I sometimes buy things there that I would have bought at Walmart, showing them Walmart’s price, and THEY match it.
I don’t know how they could do that if they paid significantly more than Walmart did.
[i]Wal-Mart has, in essence, taken advantage of overwhelming market control to the point that they control the price point both in acquisitions and sales.[/i]
I call that [b]looking out for their customers.[/b]
[i]Their products aren’t that great, and the good name brands they do carry I can get cheaper elsewhere.
[/i]Which means they’re not a monopoly.
[i]And btw, how can it not be a conflict of interest that Bill Gates sits on the board of companies like HP and other companies who make products that work with his OS?[/i]
Well that’s dumb… What do you want, hardware that [b]won’t work[/b] with their OS?
[i]So you’ve never demanded anything from anyone else? More money in pay for your work? A refund at a store? [/i]
I meant demand something for nothing, or against the will of the one being demanded. Examples.
I ordered and paid for 4 fish sandwiches ad the drive-thru yesterday, and when I got home there were only three, so I went back and “demanded” (politely, of course) another fish sandwich. Since they already had my money, it wasn’t unreasonable.
I asked for a raise, yes. I pointed out how much more that I was doing than what I was originally hired for, and they agreed.
I have never, however, demanded someone give me something of theirs for nothing in return. I have “asked” to borrow money before, but have never demanded anything I didn’t think I had a clear right to expect.
[i]So if all your retirement accounts crashed, you lost your job and couldn’t get another, and you couldn’t pay for everything you have and lost it…you should just curl up in a ball and die and starve?[/i]
I should “ask”, and ask nicely, for assistance. If it was not forthcoming, I would do my best to live off the land until I couldn’t any longer, then yes, I’d probably curl up and die.
[i]Life doesn’t always go as planned. Years of hard work can be shot down in a matter of 9 months. Just ask my parents.[/i]
I’m sorry about your brother, and about your parents, but those trials and tribulations do not create an obligation for anyone else.
[i]They put it in accounts? No bank is required to loan it.[/i]
If they didn’t, THEY wouldn’t make any money.
[i]They put it offshore? No jobs are created here.[/i]
Irrelevant to me, I’m not an isolationist.
[i]You *assume* that the wealthy are going to invest/spend/give/donate/hire here. [/i]
They will if they think they can profit by doing so… market, regulations, etc. all affect that. If we WANT them to invest here, doesn’t it make sense to make it conducive to them doing so?
[i]Wal-Mart buys 99.98% of their retail product from China, and over 70% of all products in their stores (including food products).[/i]
I’d say “so what?”, but I am more concerned with the accuracy of that statement. Please provide your source.
[i]Wal-Mart has kept its profits up, yet are they growing more jobs in this country? Not unless it’s someone who will stock shelves and push carts for minimum wage.
[/i]Again, so what? Forcing them to pay more will only reduce the number of employees AND make those fewer employees do MORE work. What have you helped? Oh Yeah, now you have to have more government services to deal with the displaced workers.
[i]What’s next? Will we have to order online from China?[/i]
Now you’re getting (even more) ridiculous.
This is just another version of penis envy…. They’ve got it, you don’t, and you’re mad about it because you don’t have control of the people who are “ding this to you”. Sorry, them’s the breaks. Play the hand you’re dealt the best you can.
Good luck!
-
February 26, 2009 at 9:25 am #2762389
You seem to think
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to i’d support that
[i]They put it in accounts? No bank is required to loan it.[/i]
That these people are stupid. They’re not. “No bank” is stupid enough to NOT loan money, because that’s the only way they can make a profit (or even pay their employees)!
Good Luck. Really!
-
February 26, 2009 at 10:17 am #2762367
quick follow-ups
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to i’d support that
i have more important things to do:
a) Google “walmart products made in china” and hunt for those number like i did. i found 5 articles. i’m not doing your work for you, and you’ve never shown me statistics of how when the wealthy make more then the prosperity of all Americans goes up equally…now have you?
b) You claimed that letting the wealthy keep their money benefits us and grows jobs and makes things prosperous. Then, you claim it doesn’t matter to you because you’re not an isolationist when they offshore and outsource jobs overseas…yet it is the exact contradiction to your claim.
Does letting the wealthy make things here prosperous or not?
And if so, why is Microsoft firing Americans and keeping Indians to do work?
How does that help America prosper by putting Americans out of work?
c) If you really knew what I have saved in banks and how many accounts I have, you’d know I am not jealous of anyone over money. Although my financial standing and inheritances are none of your business, I’ll tell you that I’m not hurting for anything and could very well dip into accounts and pay off my house. But since I’m earning about 7.5-12% on investments, and my mortgage is 6%.. I come out better in the long-term. I’m not so dumb, eh?
Just because I don’t see things your way, and I don’t believe it when you tell me it’s good when Wal-Mart and Microsoft’s profits have gone up against the past year’s numbers, then Microsoft lays off 1400 people…that is prosperity?
Get real. Bill Gates isn’t the Virgin Mary, and the guys at the helm of Wal-Mart are not Jesus’ disciples. They’re only out for their own profit, and don’t care how many or few people they employee, or whether they are employed in America…so long as they meet their contractual bonus goals to earn their pay.
And, that’s why prosperity through trickle-down economics is a failure: the misnomer that the wealthy will always help those below them to prosper like they did.
Anyways, I have database issues to take care of. You keep fooling yourself into believing everything will be okay as long as the rich get richer.
-
February 26, 2009 at 11:39 am #2762316
Did you also
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to i’d support that
[i]a) Google “walmart products made in china” and hunt for those number like i did. i found 5 articles. i’m not doing your work for you, and you’ve never shown me statistics of how when the wealthy make more then the prosperity of all Americans goes up equally…now have you[/i]
google “walmart products made in (every other country in the world)” for comparison purposes?
Just off the top of my head, most of their towels are made in Turkey, India, or Greece. Most of their tires come from Japan, USA, England, and South Korea, in about that order I would guesstimate. ALL of their car batteries are made in USA. Pottery often comes from the Mediterranean areas. Many of their men’s accessories are made in Mexico, etc.
They get stuff from all over the world. Now, China has a significant percentage of the world’s workforce, so it only stands to reason that a store that buys from all over the world would buy them from where most of the products are produced.
We can’t be isolationists in this shrinking world.
[i]Does letting the wealthy make things here prosperous or not?
[/i]Certainly less so when the government puts roadblocks in their way. (I think this is intentional… Can’t have the people thinking they don’t “need” as much government, can we?)
[i]c) If you really knew what I have saved in banks and how many accounts I have, you’d know I am not jealous of anyone over money. Although my financial standing and inheritances are none of your business,[/i]
But other people’s wages and situations are yours… That’s rich!
[i]I’ll tell you that I’m not hurting for anything and could very well dip into accounts and pay off my house. But since I’m earning about 7.5-12% on investments, and my mortgage is 6%.. I come out better in the long-term. I’m not so dumb, eh?[/i]
Never said you were dumb. Maybe shortsighted… you seem to have a lot of risk.
Me, I’m probably a lot less well-heeled, but I spent the last 30 years saving a third of my meager income. I learned to be frugal, and to be happier with what I had rather than sadder about what I didn’t have, then one day I went in and dropped a hefty cashiers check down and bought a modest home outright. No mortgage mess. No worries about value (its only value to me is in how well it keeps me warm and dry.). I can now retire in a few months and not be particularly worried even though my pension will be modest. I can work for the little extras without risking my home or any other asset. I’ll live and be happy about it until I die. That might not seem like much to some, but it means a lot to me. More than the 60-inch plasma – xbox – iphone – beemer world could ever mean. That was my dream and the only one I ever sought to have any control over. I see so many people, though, who are out to control EVERYTHING in the world around them, even things that are none of their damned business or have no effect on them whatsoever. They really should stop that, because frankly, we’re getting real close to the time when if you mess with the wrong person’s liberties, he’ll “pop a cap in your ass” (I think that’s the popular term…).
And if that’s not enough for you, many of these people are beginning to form into groups for mutual protection… essentially rebuilding what defines this country from the bottom up. It’s going to be an exciting time over the next generation or three, and I’m confident that the results will drop jaws all around the world.
Obama said we’d come out of this a stronger and better nation, and he’s right, we will! But they’re just “cheerleader words” to him… I don’t think he has any grasp of what’s really in store 🙂
[edit fix formatting]
-
February 27, 2009 at 6:27 am #2763389
a few things
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to i’d support that
[i]google “walmart products made in (every other country in the world)” for comparison purposes?[/i]
I see you didn’t google to get published facts. Go figure.
[i]Just off the top of my head, most of their towels are made in Turkey, India, or Greece. Most of their tires come from Japan, USA, England, and South Korea, in about that order I would guesstimate. ALL of their car batteries are made in USA. Pottery often comes from the Mediterranean areas. Many of their men’s accessories are made in Mexico, etc.
They get stuff from all over the world. Now, China has a significant percentage of the world’s workforce, so it only stands to reason that a store that buys from all over the world would buy them from where most of the products are produced.[/i]
Your guesstimate? Top of your head? You mean, you know where Wal-Mart gets all their products and know more than publications who did the research?
Nice.. not humble at all, are we?
[i]We can’t be isolationists in this shrinking world.[/i]
There is a BIG difference between:
a) being “isolationist”
b) doing what is best for your workforce.Just ask anyone in Europe whose country joined the EU how not looking out for those who have built your country is bad.
Holland: Did not restrict immigration. 10,000s of immigrants poured in from Turkey. Their public assistance programs are swamped and work is harder to come by.
England: The day the UK joined the EU, the Croatian embassy alone had over 8,000 people waiting outside to get their EU papers to go to work immediately in England…the flood of all immigrants has stifled the job market even before their economic downturn.
Just a couple of examples there I know, because my friends in those countries have told me how things are bleak there now.
So, being an isolationist is near impossible and a bad thing.
But, being totally open to the point that rampant capitalism is allowed to occur and ruin your country by:
a) putting your own citizens out of work
b) allow unfettered immigration of lower-cost labor into the country to put your people out of work
c) force wages down, therefore lowering expenditures and forcing businesses to lower production and put more people out of workSee, your way of allowing open, rampant, unoverseen capitalism to be the penultimate social standard will cause, without a doubt in due time, a cascade of things to occur that will bring the economy to its knees.
Want proof?
8 years under Bush: Oil markets allowed to wildly “speculate” prices through the roof without reason, cause, or restriction. The price of fuel doubling in 3 years was a huge catalyst (probably the biggest) in the financial woes of most Americans.
Then right before a Democrat who is going to change things is leading in polls by 10% over the Republican who would maintain those ties to big oil, all of a sudden gas drops $.80 a gallon.
Go figure.
So, your love of the “let me make as much money as I can without getting imprisoned” is what is going to ruin this country. Because, those with power will continue not to make our country great but the sum of their savings. And when the attitude of this country becomes overwhelmingly “me me me”, then we are doomed to fail and it’s all in the name of selfishness and power.
And if you remember back to the foundings of this country, no one came here to build a better homestead. They came to build a country where everyone has a fair shake.
And when a few have all the power, things are never fair.
[i]Certainly less so when the government puts roadblocks in their way. (I think this is intentional… Can’t have the people thinking they don’t “need” as much government, can we?)[/i]
Show me where the government blocked banks from giving out bad loans?
Bush’s administration cut back on oversight and allowed them more freedom to loan, and what did they do? Exploited it to the point that they ruined the financial sector.
Yay for government not overseeing things properly, huh?
[i]But other people’s wages and situations are yours… That’s rich![/i]
Have I [b]ever[/b] asked you or anyone on here what you have financially in the bank or what you earn at work in the point of a discussion?
No.
So, go figure. You try to make an argument out of something that never happened.
QED
[i]Never said you were dumb. Maybe shortsighted… you seem to have a lot of risk.[/i]
Nah, no risk. I have circumstances that I can fallback from easily and not be hurt.
I lost 20% in my state retirement account, but I still have more than enough money in there and I only have 5 years with them.
Adding pennies up eventually leads to riches. Dad always told me that. He was right.
[i]Me, I’m probably a lot less well-heeled, but I spent the last 30 years saving a third of my meager income. I learned to be frugal, and to be happier with what I had rather than sadder about what I didn’t have, then one day I went in and dropped a hefty cashiers check down and bought a modest home outright. No mortgage mess. No worries about value (its only value to me is in how well it keeps me warm and dry.). I can now retire in a few months and not be particularly worried even though my pension will be modest. I can work for the little extras without risking my home or any other asset. I’ll live and be happy about it until I die. That might not seem like much to some, but it means a lot to me. More than the 60-inch plasma – xbox – iphone – beemer world could ever mean. That was my dream and the only one I ever sought to have any control over. I see so many people, though, who are out to control EVERYTHING in the world around them, even things that are none of their damned business or have no effect on them whatsoever. They really should stop that, because frankly, we’re getting real close to the time when if you mess with the wrong person’s liberties, he’ll “pop a cap in your ass” (I think that’s the popular term…).[/i]
Well, I don’t want to control anyone’s anything. But, I sure don’t want guys like Bernie Madoff (or however you spell it) getting away with financial murder of 1000s of people…simply because the SEC (who had been cut back too) was not performing their duties of certifying/validating/auditing financial investors who are under their guise.
Do you realize? Madoff walked off with $50,000,000,000.00 of peoples’ money. And has he been made to pay ANY of it back?
Nope.
So, how is this country protecting its citizens who pay taxes from guys running schemes like that?
They aren’t.
And if someone like him does that and its proven, he needs to lose EVERYTHING. PERIOD. And, the banking system here needs to require movement of cash out not between national institutions to be limited.
There is a REALLY big difference between controlling things, and putting in place rules and regulations and laws that protect the rights of everyone.
And, your suggestion that allowing only the wealthy to control, harbor, grow, and have wealth…would:
A) only serve to let them serve their own interests
B) be the basis by which THEY control who gets opportunity and joins their ranks
C) would stifle imagination and innovation in our countrySo, it serves no purpose. Washington and Adams and Franklin were not allowed to keep other sharecroppers from working their way into plantation owners.
But in todays America…he who has the gold…makes the rules. And, that is a sad state of affairs.
[i]And if that’s not enough for you, many of these people are beginning to form into groups for mutual protection… essentially rebuilding what defines this country from the bottom up. It’s going to be an exciting time over the next generation or three, and I’m confident that the results will drop jaws all around the world.[/i]
They’ve already done that for years. Mostly in investment clubs and country clubs.
[i]Obama said we’d come out of this a stronger and better nation, and he’s right, we will! But they’re just “cheerleader words” to him… I don’t think he has any grasp of what’s really in store happy[/i]
I don’t think anyone knows what’s going to happen.
Everyone (including China) was riding the high-life, go-for-it, booming times gravy train.
That’s why it was nice that I was sticking back money in the bank while this was all going on. It assures me that if I want out, I can be.
Whether I simply move my funds elsewhere and declare bankruptcy and walk away from my home with bad credit.
Or, I sell the house and make nothing from it and just go on with life
I have options, and I plan on exercising them within the next year. Hopefully by then though, things will recover and I can walk away with something to show for it.
But, I’m not counting on government. As much as I like Obama and that he is not following the status quo of “gospel preaching”, flag-waving, “give hope where it’s needed” brand of politics…he is a politician.
And until the day that farmers, housewives, barbers, garbagemen, retirees, store clerks, steelworkers, and the like…are allowed to go to DC and make laws that work for everyone in this country…
I fear we’re in for a hell of a time, as long as those who (most of) have never worked a day of hard work in their life…are allowed to determine what is “best” for our people.
And yeah, I think giving a $400 or $600 “tax relief check” to a person who paid no taxes…is stupid and never should have happened.
(edit: put the decimal in $.80)
-
February 27, 2009 at 8:24 am #2763319
Of course I did!
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to i’d support that
[i]I see you didn’t google to get published facts. Go figure.
[/i]In fact, I expanded the search by googling
walmart products “made in China” (note the difference in placement of the quotes) and came up with some quarter million matches (No, I did not read them all) and discovered, as you did, that 70% of the products sold are made in China.
That’s of [b]products sold[/b] not of their [b]available products[/b]. Do you understand the difference? It means that the “made in China” products have a higher turnover rate… people are [b]choosing[/b] to buy more of these products. It does not mean that anywhere near 70% of a store’s inventory was made in China.
All you have proven is that Walmart is successful at providing what their consumers [b]want[/b] at a price they can [b]afford[/b]. What on earth is wrong with that?
[i]Your guesstimate? Top of your head? You mean, you know where Wal-Mart gets all their products and know more than publications who did the research?[/i]
It’s not all that difficult to look at a dishcloth I bought at Walmart and read “Made in Turkey” off of the label 🙂
Oh, by the way… I also googled:
Target products “Made in China”, I got over twice as many hits….
Go figure!
-
February 27, 2009 at 11:54 am #2763227
Forgot to add
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to i’d support that
[i]I don’t think anyone knows what’s going to happen.[/i]
Things are happening, though it might take a generation or so to come to fruition… Put your ear to the ground, Kemosabe, the natives are getting restless.
[i]That’s why it was nice that I was sticking back money in the bank while this was all going on. It assures me that if I want out, I can be.[/i]
It might not help as much as you think. Here’s why: As the government puts more money into the system it makes the money already IN the system worth less (worthless?). Now this is great for those with debt (that they’re paying on), because what they borrowed was worth more than that they’re paying back, but it’s bad for everyone else. People with money in banks (even if insurance is guaranteed) or even coffee cans are going to see the value of their money fall.
If I had a lot of cash, I would probably buy as much unimproved land as I could. The “value” will most likely remain stable, and when the recovery does occur, it will probably be in demand. It also has the advantage of putting the real cash into the economy, perhaps lessening the need (if enough people do it) to go further in debt as a nation.
[i]I have options, and I plan on exercising them within the next year. Hopefully by then though, things will recover and I can walk away with something to show for it.[/i]
I wouldn’t count on it ending that soon…
[i]And until the day that farmers, housewives, barbers, garbagemen, retirees, store clerks, steelworkers, and the like…are allowed to go to DC and make laws that work for everyone in this country…[/i]
and remove the ones that don’t!
[i]I fear we’re in for a hell of a time, as long as those who (most of) have never worked a day of hard work in their life…are allowed to determine what is “best” for our people.[/i]
Yep.
[i]And yeah, I think giving a $400 or $600 “tax relief check” to a person who paid no taxes…is stupid and never should have happened.[/i]
Double yep.
[edit, fix formatting]
-
February 27, 2009 at 12:54 pm #2762859
numbers i could find again
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to i’d support that
According to information I can find again-
From the 2004 PBS special “Frontline”:
As of 1984, Sam Walton himself stated at that time imported goods in his stores only accounted for about 6% of total sales.
In 2004, Frank Yuan, former middleman who did business with Wal-Mart in China said:
“They only use the top 1 percent of factories. Maybe top 50 factories in a given country. Wal-Mart has 60 percent of the largest factories in the world [working for them].”
And that they try to keep their supply chain to a minimum number of vendors to “increase production demands” and “keep pressure on them as their only customer and be afraid of losing them”.
Hasbro, Inc., the Rhode Island company, who sells 21 of their total stock through Wal-Mart Stores, has said:
“We source production of substantially all of our toy products and certain of our game products through unrelated manufacturers in various Far East countries, principally China.”
As of 2004, over 80 percent of Wal-Mart’s 60,000 global suppliers are based in China.
In 2006, Wal-Mart imported almost $27 billion of Chinese goods out of an estimated $29-30B in retail items (which is about 90 percent or so).
Wal-Mart’s imports are responsible for 11% of the growth of the total U.S. trade deficit with China between 2001 and 2006.
In 2006, Wal-Mart?s grocery sales were $98.7
billion. This means the company controls approximately 20% of the retail
grocery and consumables market. The second largest grocer, Kroger?s,
makes only a little more than half of Wal-Mart?s grocery sales.In 2006, During discussions about sourcing in other countries, Amy Wyatt of the store’s international corporate affairs division said that 90 to 95 percent of products in Wal-Mart’s stores outside the United States — including stores in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Puerto Rico and the United Kingdom — are generally produced in the region. “In the United States, our local sourcing is not as high as 90 percent,” she said. “The manufacturing just doesn’t exist.”
So, Wal-Mart buys in other countries who have goods to buy there. But, they don’t in the USA. Wonder why?
The report the 70% quote originated from The China Business Weekly, in an 2004 article by Jiang Jingling, stated:
“So far, more than 70% of the commodities sold in Wal-Mart are made in China.”
However, many sources agree with me that “sold in Wal-Mart” does not mean “retail sales at Wal-Mart”, but rather “for sale in Wal-Mart”.
The 70% is also a figure that means individual product lines across all markets, that is not percentage of units sold in retail items.
Remember, as of 2004 “80 or 90 percent of shoes and apparel” (According to Frank Yuan) are purchased from China. And, Wal-Mart’s trade with China from 2001 to 2006 increased 181 percent and far outpaced any of their other supplier countries including:
Indonesia
Turkey
Malaysia
Honduras
Guatemala
MexicoAs of a 2006 article (just 2 years after 70% in 2004), the total of goods made in China sold in Wal-Mart stores was stated as:
“Wal-Mart sources 80% of its products worldwide from China.”
with a growth from $9.5B in 2001 to $26.7B in 2006.
From an 2008 abstract by members of the University of Missouri and Baylor University’s Departments of Economics, a quote:
“Retail chains and imports of consumer goods from developing countries have grown sharply over the past 25 years. Wal-Mart’s sales, which currently account for 15% of U.S. imports of consumer goods from China, grew 90-fold over this period, while U.S. imports from China increased 30-fold.”
Finally, estimates say that of Wal-Mart Stores sales that approximately 1-3 percent (varying on source), of products where from China in 1981, which was shadowed by their imports from other countries such as Mexico and Japan, sold at the time.
The most numerous individual items sold across Wal-Mart scanners are food items.
It was also said that even tho Wal-Mart is always looking to move to suppliers in other areas of the world to further their efforts to lower labor costs and increase profits, reports are that of Wal-Mart’s household retail sales (clothing, shoes, electronics, furniture, toys, etc.), close to all of those items are still manufactured by factories in China or one of its possessions.
And if you’d read of all the things Wal-Mart does do to try and get shortcuts on food inspections from other countries, ways to force employees below minimum hours to become part time and cut benefits, etc., you’d probably be appaulled.
At least I’d hope so. It was an eye-opening bit of reading I’d done.
Anyways, I’ve spent better than two hours now digging up all the numbers I could find again from all the articles I read.
I have to go now and finish implementing a class to generically handle items from budget requests and budget items and inventory before 4:30pm.
Have a nice weekend.
-
February 27, 2009 at 1:00 pm #2762856
just be sure that
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to i’d support that
The natives you hear being restless…aren’t the ones that already scalped your neighbor and are leaving.
Or, it’s not your neighbors making a fuss about the last Chief we had running the tribe in Washington.
Anyways, I gotta go. Can’t banter. I have 30 mins to finish, then I get to go drive 4 hours.
Yay for me 🙁
-
February 27, 2009 at 8:36 pm #2762764
I never thought that
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to i’d support that
[i]The 70% is also a figure that means individual product lines across all markets, that is not percentage of units sold in retail items.[/i]
that it was a number of products sold or in inventory. I presumed it was the money collected from the sale of…
But so what? They’re not forcing anybody to buy anything. They even have items from other countries right next to them on the shelves!
The people are obviously buying what they want. Who are you to to tell them they can’t?
-
February 27, 2009 at 8:38 pm #2762763
Lucky me.
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to i’d support that
[i]I have 30 mins to finish, then I get to go drive 4 hours.
[/i]I finished in 15, then walked home from work in 12 🙂
-
March 2, 2009 at 5:01 am #2769316
feel lucky
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to i’d support that
you didn’t have the weekend i did.
-
March 2, 2009 at 2:13 pm #2769030
Yikes
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to i’d support that
[i]How does taking a chance in an endeavour require you to be wealthy to take it?[/i]
Depends on the endeavor… If your life’s dream is to run your own lemonade stand, I suppose you wouldn’t have to be too wealthy… But for a larger endeavor, you’re going to need wealth, or someone willing to risk theirs on you.
[i]You wouldn’t have a lot of things too, like police, military, fire departments, schools…wow…let’s do without all that.
[/i]Sure you would… just take the total, split it by the number of citizens, and send them all a bill.
[i]Get what you can? Like hell. If you can’t get it all from them, make them work it off for those families for the rest of their lives shucking corn or working at an auto garage changing oil.[/i]
No problem… just change the law to allow that.
[i]And oh yeah, c’est la vie. Hope a guy doesn’t take your whole retirement and crash it. Can’t keep your house and car and stuff? C’est la vie, eh?[/i]
Yep, I’m not immune from it either. I take my little risks and I’m perfectly willing to accept the consequences.
[i]Wealth only guarantees one thing: the person who is wealthy has money.[/i]
Having it is of little use, and people who have it generally know that. Yeah, you could put it in a coffee can and bury it in the back yard, but most people don’t.
[i]Funny…I knew lots of lazy ass drug dealers in high school and college who didn’t work, and always had more stuff than me.
Why is that?[/i]
Because our tax system taxes legitimate income. If instead it taxed consumption, all the drug dealers and bank robbers (as well as other under-the-table occupations and enterprises) would be paying.
-
March 2, 2009 at 1:38 am #2777486
It looks that way
by rob mekel · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Then
in this case. 🙂
As I am not totaly against taxes, taxes do have a function. That is, in an ideal world you are right, we wouldn’t need taxes. Then the question of what is “the” ideal world hits the surface.
Is a society with all equally paid (wealth) the ideal world? Or will all benefits to the shareholders be the best?
My “guess” is that when wealth is equally shared we’re on the right track. “Government” is trying to make that happen. Sometimes they screw-up sometimes they hit the jackpot.Every four-years or so we can make up the balance … if we withhold from voting … then we have to shut up and wait till the next elections. If we do vote … hey … check if your congresman does the things he/she promised to do. Oh and be aware of party-politics. They do hit in at voting times in congress or on any other political-arena.
-
March 2, 2009 at 6:02 am #2769299
Wealth is not an entitlement.
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It looks that way
[i]My “guess” is that when wealth is equally shared we’re on the right track. [/i]
It is EARNED. Work harder/smarter, earn more. Take calculated risks, create opportunities for others, and maybe earn even more. Divide the wealth equally, and you remove the incentive to work harder, and to take the risks.
Without the possibility of perks, there is no extra effort. Society suffers…
[i]”Government” is trying to make that happen.[/i]
The more they try, the less wealth there is to spread (there is always loss in a machine). What they DO manage to do is spread misery.
I’m not totally against taxes either. I’m just against the ones that benefit one at the expense of another. Those public services that can be metered should be paid for by and in the amount used by a particular citizen. Those that cannot be metered should have their cost split equally among all citizens.
Those who earn more ARE, either through spending or investing, creating opportunities for others. They should not be penalized for it.
-
March 2, 2009 at 6:16 am #2769290
But is it “fair”?
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It looks that way
is it fair that some people are born with intelligence and strong work ethic while others are not? We should medicate the hard workers to slow them down, so the less capable don’t feel badly.
Is it fair that some people are very attractive while others are monkeybuttugly? We need to use surgery to make them less attractive, and FORCE them onto a 100% cake diet, so the less attractive won’t feel badly.
Fair is for retards and 1st graders.
Work hard, and YOU should benefit.
People that FEEL instead of THINK will try to make YOU feel badly for succeeding and try to deprive you of what you have earned. It is always easier to tear someone down than to build someone up, so they have to tear everyone down to the same level.
-
March 2, 2009 at 7:15 am #2769261
MAM
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It looks that way
[i]It is always easier to tear someone down than to build someone up, so they have to tear everyone down to the same level. [/i]
Mutually assured misery 🙁
-
March 2, 2009 at 7:16 am #2769260
Those who earn more making opportunity
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It looks that way
[i]It is EARNED. Work harder/smarter, earn more. [/i]
Not so true.
Case in point:
Paris Hilton
She earned nothing she has from hard work.
[i]Take calculated risks, create opportunities for others, and maybe earn even more. Divide the wealth equally, and you remove the incentive to work harder, and to take the risks.[/i]
We all take calculated risks every day. Some more than others. Risks have nothing to do with ensuring wealth. A risk is based on a (sometimes somewhat calculated chance of a) opportunity that has no guarantee. Ask any realistic and honest stock advisor.
And, no one who is wealthy is having their wealth “divided” up among the masses. They may pay a larger cut, but most often the wealthy have tax breaks to take advantage of to get monies back that the common American does not get.
How many people making $40,000 a year you hear of putting a tennis court in and getting a property write-off for a “home improvement”?
[i]Without the possibility of perks, there is no extra effort. Society suffers…[/i]
I would think the ultimate perk is having a house, food, clothes, car to get you to work, and not having to watch your family starve or suffer.
And, I know a lot of people who have tons of perks and bonuses…who do little work.
[i]The more they try, the less wealth there is to spread (there is always loss in a machine). What they DO manage to do is spread misery.[/i]
The wealthy also cause loss too. It’s not a one-sided deal.
[i]Those who earn more ARE, either through spending or investing, creating opportunities for others. They should not be penalized for it.[/i]
Oh yes.
Lay
Milkin
Bush
Madoff
Skilling
et. al.All people with wealth who ran companies/banks/investment groups to give people better opportunity…and ruined 100,000s of lives.
They shouldn’t be penalized. Right?
Wealth does not always instill altruism or philanthropy.
Wealth most often perpetuates greed and self-indulgence.
-
March 2, 2009 at 7:20 am #2769258
some people
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It looks that way
with intelligence and a strong work ethic get screwed no matter what.
how hard you work has little to do with your success anymore in the world.
it’s who you know, whose arse you kiss, and who you’re related to.
unfortunate…but all too true.
-
March 2, 2009 at 8:50 am #2769212
au contraire
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It looks that way
[i]Paris Hilton
She earned nothing she has from hard work.
[/i]But it was GIVEN to her by someone who did.
AND she buys stuff, which provides an opportunity for someone to make stuff.
[i]Risks have nothing to do with ensuring wealth.[/i]
Unless someone takes a chance that an endeavor could be successful, how would anything EVER be?
[i]A risk is based on a (sometimes somewhat calculated chance of a) opportunity that has no guarantee.[/i]
True, there are no guarantees, but you can’t win if you don’t play.
[i]And, no one who is wealthy is having their wealth “divided” up among the masses. They may pay a larger cut, but most often the wealthy have tax breaks to take advantage of to get monies back that the common American does not get.
How many people making $40,000 a year you hear of putting a tennis court in and getting a property write-off for a “home improvement”?[/i]
If you weren’t taxing income, you wouldn’t have anyone seeking “write-offs”.
[i]All people with wealth who ran companies/banks/investment groups to give people better opportunity…and ruined 100,000s of lives.[/i]
Some risks don’t pan out… c’est la vie.
If there’s criminal activity, go after the wrongdoer, and get what you can out of him. If you can’t get full restitution, again, c’est la vie…. but if I didn’t steal it from you, I shouldn’t have to pay it back.
[i]Wealth does not always instill altruism or philanthropy.[/i]
Not always, but then again: It’s THEIRS… Why should it?
====
[i]with intelligence and a strong work ethic get screwed no matter what.[/i]
And some people get hit by lightning, or win the lottery… Life ain’t fair, and it’s never going to be. A specific person will usually get farther with a strong work ethic than without one.
[i]how hard you work has little to do with your success anymore in the world.[/i]
As opposed to what? Doing just enough to get by, or doing nothing? I think you’re wrong.
[i]it’s who you know, whose arse you kiss, and who you’re related to.[/i]
Only if YOU think it is…
And depending on what your goals are…
-
March 2, 2009 at 12:35 pm #2769086
Tony…Tony…Tony…
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It looks that way
[i]But it was GIVEN to her by someone who did.[/i]
Wrong…it was given to her by her father, who did nothing either. Her grandfather did all the work, and now two generations are riding on his coat tails.
And besides, your WHOLE premise was that the wealth grow wealth best, and make more opportunity for others best.
When in fact, Paris Hilton has done little to provide opportunity to anyone else…
except Rick Solomon, who she graciously did favors for on video so he could make a mint on that.
Go Paris! Enable private enterprise! lol
[i]AND she buys stuff, which provides an opportunity for someone to make stuff.[/i]
Oh yes, that jewel encrusted blackberry she was overcharged for by a custom designer made so many opportunities for those kids in South Africa who get beat if they don’t mine enough diamonds out of a mine.
She’s such the saint to make sure her wealth makes so much opportunity.
[i]Unless someone takes a chance that an endeavor could be successful, how would anything EVER be?[/i]
How does taking a chance in an endeavour require you to be wealthy to take it?
Was George Washington Carver or John Crapper or Jonas Salk wealthy? No. But, they made some pretty darn important things happen. And, none of them got wealthy from it…did they?
[i]True, there are no guarantees, but you can’t win if you don’t play.[/i]
Work effort isn’t a lottery.
[i]If you weren’t taxing income, you wouldn’t have anyone seeking “write-offs”.[/i]
You wouldn’t have a lot of things too, like police, military, fire departments, schools…wow…let’s do without all that.
[i]Some risks don’t pan out… c’est la vie.[/i]
Yeah, especially when the wealthy crooks get to screw people over and never have to pay the money back.
Go figure. The wealthy make the laws…the wealthy handle the wealth…the wealthy screw people over…the wealthy get them a break.
Nice. We should let them feed our kids too, and trust they won’t poison or molest them too.
[i]If there’s criminal activity, go after the wrongdoer, and get what you can out of him. If you can’t get full restitution, again, c’est la vie…. but if I didn’t steal it from you, I shouldn’t have to pay it back.[/i]
Get what you can? Like hell. If you can’t get it all from them, make them work it off for those families for the rest of their lives shucking corn or working at an auto garage changing oil.
And oh yeah, c’est la vie. Hope a guy doesn’t take your whole retirement and crash it. Can’t keep your house and car and stuff? C’est la vie, eh?
[i]Not always, but then again: It’s THEIRS… Why should it?[/i]
It was your suggestion that wealth gives opportunity to others. I was just calling it bull$hit.
Wealth only guarantees one thing: the person who is wealthy has money.
====
[i]And some people get hit by lightning, or win the lottery… Life ain’t fair, and it’s never going to be. A specific person will usually get farther with a strong work ethic than without one.[/i]
Funny…I knew lots of lazy ass drug dealers in high school and college who didn’t work, and always had more stuff than me.
Why is that?
Cause ethics have nothing to do with how far you get nowadays.
I could have been making $5000 a run driving cocaine from TX to OK City. Didn’t do it. I had morals and ethics. What’d it get me? Nothing.
[i]As opposed to what? Doing just enough to get by, or doing nothing? I think you’re wrong.[/i]
Tell that to someone who gets everything free that sits on their ass, while I’m at an office 9-10 hours a day working, then going home and doing everything myself, and taking care of 2 elderly parents on weekends or weeknights when the call is an emergency.
Life ain’t fair, but you’re not gonna tell me that even for the most part…hard work will pay off in the short or long term.
Getting your nose up the right person’s arse pays off a lot better…trust me. I saw a guy younger than me at the power company I contracted at…because he was willing to be a hatchet man and had no feelings and had his nose up a VP’s arse…he was the trans-op manager at age 32…not cause he worked hard (i talked to several of his co-workers from his previous jobs…they said he was a lazy bum)…but cause he sucked up to the right guy, played golf with him, etc.
Yep…it’s hard work…cleaning the brown outta your nose.
[i]Only if YOU think it is…
And depending on what your goals are…[/i]
nah…it is that way. I’ve seen more kiss-arses make it than the people who bust their arse working hard.
See, perception and partiality are more important now in the American workplace than fact and effort.
I wrote 10,000s of lines of code for a power company as a consultant hoping to get a full-time position, worked free overtime, etc.
What’d I get? Nada. Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Cero.
What happened to that work ethic paying off? What happened to that working hard will pay off?
Guess if I’d have had my nose up the director’s ass over my manager, I’d have gotten hired.
Oh yeah. That programming job they had opened I wanted? They hired the director’s future son-in-law.
Go figure that one out too how he got that job…right?
-
March 2, 2009 at 7:32 pm #2780118
Jck…Jck…Jck…
by nicknielsen · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It looks that way
So you’ve worked hard and gotten screwed? Welcome to the f*cking club! Did you think you were alone?
[i]She’s [/i]{Paris Hilton}[i] such the saint to make sure her wealth makes so much opportunity.[/i]
There’s a lot of class envy in this sentence and those preceding it. Paris has money and did nothing to earn it…poor pitiful you.
On the elimination of income taxes, you write: [i]You wouldn’t have a lot of things too, like police, military, fire departments, schools…wow…let’s do without all that.[/i]
As if income taxes are the only taxes we pay? Aren’t most local police, fire, and schools funded with property and sales taxes? Aren’t you in Florida, where [u]everything[/u] is funded with property, sales, or excise taxes? Sarcasm or no, you would look much less foolish had you not posted that sentence.
Finally, maybe I’m missing a lot because I’m only skimming your posts after the first few, but you seem to be advocating the utopian goal of “equal outcomes.” While we are all entitled to an equal opportunity, [b]we are not guaranteed an equal outcome.[/b] Even though it’s written down, all men are NOT created equal. Some are better looking than others, some are smarter than others, some work harder than others, and some are just flat lucky. Some people get no breaks, work their entire lives, never get promoted and die having never achieved even one of their dreams or major goals. Others get the breaks because they know somebody, or they’re in the right place at the right time, or they win a sweepstakes or the lottery.
Would you require that sweepstakes or lottery winners share their winnings with everybody who played? Why or why not?
edit: close tag
-
March 3, 2009 at 4:26 am #2780035
petty jealousy
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It looks that way
how does someone living foolishly off the family fortune effect you, one way or the other?
Sure, you were not born into a wealthy family, so?
Would you dare presume Paris has no right to have access to that money? Isn’t it the right of someone to earn money and hand it down to their kids?
And there is also no law requiring how someone spends THEIR money, and it is none of anyone elses business. I would say she is good for the economy as she spends a lot of money, quite foolishly.
As Tony pointed out, your class envy is very unattractive.
The best description of Paris I have ever heard “she is the stupidest person I would like to have sex with”. ]:)
-
February 25, 2009 at 8:16 am #2765025
what I was saying
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It’s not the same thing at all.
If you make people work to get a welfare check, then what can happen is one of two things. An example, a welfare person is made to go to work at McDonalds in Atlanta making $8.50 an hour. How it would work is:
1) They work their 40 hours a week and maintain their job, and McDonalds pays them their check. If there is any supplemental amount that brings them above poverty level that is needed, that is paid to them by the state/federal government.
2) They work their 40 hours a week and maintain their job, McDonalds submits a bulk transaction to welfare for hours worked by welfare recipients. Based on that, welfare pays up to an amount meeting poverty level for that area.
How does this save?
1) The system is automated. Anyone who did not work…gets no check. (no extra cost, other than implementation)
2) Anyone who didn’t get a check but worked their hours would have McDonalds Corporate contact welfare immediately to handle it as an emergency case. (This is done already in the current situation for missing/non-issued checks…so no extra cost)
3) The person working would be earning the majority of their welfare check. This would offset a large part of what they are paid now in whole by the American taxpayers.
Why did I say put the money into things like police and jails?
Because those who won’t work and still would want things…would likely:
a) beg
b) live off someone willing to support them
c) stealin the case of (c), you need more police to capture and detain them for prosecution…and eventual incarceration.
after that, what you need to do is make prisons punishment again. not a weight room or pool hall or tv room or social club.
make it hard labor. make it rehabilitative.
if people in prison are busy busting rock with a sledge hammer 50 yards apart in a quarry 10 hours a day, they don’t have time to make weapons out of toothbrushes and what not. they’re too busy working and sleeping and eating.
but in the case of government:
intelligent reform is the answer…not absolute demand for piecemeal elimination cases
-
February 25, 2009 at 8:52 am #2764984
busting rocks
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to what I was saying
gives lots of oddly shaped and SHARP rocks….
Also, gives the same results as being in the weight room.
If anything, make them garden and become vegetarians, so when they come out, they will be to weakened to commit violent crimes. B-)
Rehabilitation is a myth.
-
February 25, 2009 at 9:40 am #2764945
wow…sharp objects
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to busting rocks
they make them out of magazines and parrafin wax if they want them
like I said…put em 50 yards apart…armed guards with sniper rifles.
hell…put them in bee keeper outfits.
I don’t care. just punish them. make them work.
otherwise, you’re just giving them a place to organize and plan on what they’ll do when they get out.
like what we have now.
-
February 26, 2009 at 10:41 am #2762352
I am the first to line up to support that
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to wow…sharp objects
NO tv other than the history or discovery channel.
I love what “Sheriff Joe” has done. B-) He is THE MAN!
-
February 27, 2009 at 6:36 am #2763381
No
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to wow…sharp objects
Not even TV.
Make them read a donated book or magazine.
Make them sweep a floor.
Make them read into a tape recorder to make audio books or the blind.
No TV
No pool table
No ping pong
No weights
No basketballGive them a concrete walking path. Walking is enough exercise.
It’s not meant to be a playground. Prison is supposed to be punishment.
Sheriff Joe? Pink jumpsuits? hell yeah. embarass em. make them feel like the heels they are killing, raping, and stealing from people.
More power to him
-
February 27, 2009 at 8:28 am #2763318
Pink jumpsuits
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to wow…sharp objects
with fake BREASTS sewn in 🙂
-
February 27, 2009 at 10:49 am #2763243
yes jck, no tony
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to wow…sharp objects
Joe did a lot, like no coffee. they also eat bologna sandwiches, and live in tents.
As for your comment Tony, that would just help them with other recreational activities, so no implants. ;\
Oh, and a friend that is a prison guard has confirmed, “everything you have seen in the movies? All true!”. 😀 Well, that an “you are only gay if your receive”. :0
-
February 27, 2009 at 11:20 am #2763235
I should have specified…
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to wow…sharp objects
[i]that would just help them with other recreational activities, so no implants[/i]
put them in the back ]:)
-
February 25, 2009 at 9:08 am #2764965
You’re assuming
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to what I was saying
[i]If you make people work to get a welfare check, then what can happen is one of two things. An example, a welfare person is made to go to work at McDonalds in Atlanta making $8.50 an hour.[/i]
that McDonalds wants or needs all of those people. If instead you’re thinking of forcing businesses to hire people they don’t need, that cost will ultimately increase their prices, leading to other price increases, leading eventually to increasing the level considered “poverty level”
[i]ecause those who won’t work and still would want things…would likely:
a) beg
b) live off someone willing to support them
c) steal[/i]Historically, crime rates have not been significantly connected to poverty rates.
-
February 25, 2009 at 9:48 am #2764941
it was a stinkin example
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to You’re assuming
i even stated it. jesus christ. you’re nit picky.
you don’t have MAKE anyone do anything
ever hear of the employment agency? take those jobs. tell welfare people “choose one or lose your check”
neat concept, eh? eliminate part of the employment agency needed? save money?
gosh, thought you’d be able to figure that on your own. guess i assumed too much.
[i]Historically, crime rates have not been significantly connected to poverty rates.[/i]
i beg to differ with you.
i don’t know what cozy little burb you live in, but go down to Georgetown in DC or inner city Detroit or south central Los Angeles and ask the police there what the crime is like, and then check out the average income there. i’m sure that:
a) you’ll find the average income well-below what others around them make in the same area
b) crime is significantly higher than the areas around themI think you’ll find out that poverty is most often linked to crimes of theft, armed robbery, assaults with a deadly weapon, petty larcenies…as well as crimes involving narcotics and trafficking.
It’s not just a coincidence. When your baby is hungry, you do what it takes to get money now or the food.
-
February 25, 2009 at 12:43 pm #2763125
Yes,
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to it was a stinkin example
crime is higher in poorer areas (or are certain areas poorer because of crime? I know, chicken or egg.)
But during recessions and the depression, crime did not significantly change in a given area AS incomes fell in that area.
[i]ever hear of the employment agency? take those jobs. tell welfare people “choose one or lose your check”[/i]
There aren’t enough jobs for the people who just lost theirs, what makes you think they’re going to just magically appear for welfare recipients? The only thing left is “make-work”.
The equivalent would be to give GM the money to build cars at full capacity, only to leave them sitting in lots where they’ll rust away before anybody wants to buy them… Oh wait, We’re doing that 🙁
It’s an economic shell game… At best all it’s doing is postponing the inevitable (the piper must be paid), at worst, making it worse than it would otherwise be.
“Make-work” has no value, creates no wealth. It’s break-even by itself but when you factor in that the taxpayers are funding it (and let’s be honest, there’s no way in hell we’ll ever be paid back!), it’s a negative-sum game. Bad business should be allowed to fail, no matter what the cost. Only through consequences will wrongdoers stop what they’re doing wrong.
-
February 26, 2009 at 6:44 am #2762500
Yuppers
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to it was a stinkin example
[i]crime is higher in poorer areas (or are certain areas poorer because of crime? I know, chicken or egg.)
But during recessions and the depression, crime did not significantly change in a given area AS incomes fell in that area.[/i]
Poverty exists with or without recession/economic downturn.
That wasn’t the point.
[i]There aren’t enough jobs for the people who just lost theirs, what makes you think they’re going to just magically appear for welfare recipients? The only thing left is “make-work”.[/i]
There are jobs. Just that someone who got laid off as an accounting clerk doesn’t want to go work at McDonalds or Big Lots. They see it as “demeaning”.
They’re too good to work doing something they see as “beneath them”.
And btw…anyone who is desperate for a job in Hernando County, Florida…several 7-11 locations are hiring.
There are jobs. People just feel like they should start out making $12 an hour.
[i]The equivalent would be to give GM the money to build cars at full capacity, only to leave them sitting in lots where they’ll rust away before anybody wants to buy them… Oh wait, We’re doing that sad[/i]
Yep. Bailed out companies that ran themselves into the ground.
Oh wait, GM would never do that. The wealthy know how to make wealth best…right?
[i]It’s an economic shell game… At best all it’s doing is postponing the inevitable (the piper must be paid), at worst, making it worse than it would otherwise be.[/i]
At best, we would have let companies go bankrupt. People like Warren Buffet would have bought them up for pennies on the dollar, and made them work.
[i]”Make-work” has no value, creates no wealth. It’s break-even by itself but when you factor in that the taxpayers are funding it (and let’s be honest, there’s no way in hell we’ll ever be paid back!), it’s a negative-sum game. Bad business should be allowed to fail, no matter what the cost. Only through consequences will wrongdoers stop what they’re doing wrong.[/i]
Evidently, letting suit-wearing psuedo-businessmen run car companies did nothing to make wealth either.
Maybe corporate executives are just “make-work” positions then.
No way in hell? Probably not, since the government let Wagoner and those other idiots stay at the helm.
They need to bring in Iacocca and let him, as old as he is, show those idiots how to turn things around again.
But I am sick of enterprise not being held to be responsible to everyone involved in their business…and only to profit.
-
February 26, 2009 at 10:42 am #2762351
No,
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to it was a stinkin example
[i]They need to bring in Iacocca and let him, as old as he is, show those idiots how to turn things around again.
[/i]They need to liquidate GM and Chrysler’s assets and distribute them proportionately to those who are owed, and then let the market determine the needs of the consumers and endeavor to meet them.
-
February 27, 2009 at 7:13 am #2763353
Nah
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to it was a stinkin example
[i]They need to liquidate GM and Chrysler’s assets and distribute them proportionately to those who are owed, and then let the market determine the needs of the consumers and endeavor to meet them.[/i]
They need to let people like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates and Michael Dell and The Walton family of Wal-Mart…buy it at auction for pennies on the dollar.
GM is worth what? $100B? Starting bid on the auction block: $500M. Start your own car company, Bill or Warren.
Then, you pay off the shareholders and enter into negotiations with the retirees’ pension holders for final disbursement.
It wouldn’t be pretty for anyone, but at least they’d all get something out of it rather than watching it bankrupt and only the executives get something…like golden parachutes.
-
February 27, 2009 at 12:05 pm #2763223
I’ll call your ‘nah’, and raise you an ‘uh-uh’
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to it was a stinkin example
[i]It wouldn’t be pretty for anyone, but at least they’d all get something out of it rather than watching it bankrupt and only the executives get something…like golden parachutes.[/i]
Bankruptcy will list all the assets, debts and obligations, and the judge will decide who is entitled to what fraction. Yes, many will lose, but at least it won’t be dragged out.
-
February 27, 2009 at 1:08 pm #2762848
the only bad part
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to it was a stinkin example
the lawyers will rape the settlement for 20-40%.
-
February 27, 2009 at 8:41 pm #2762762
I’m pretty sure
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to it was a stinkin example
that the bankruptcy judge has the authority to alter attorney fees if he thinks they’re inappropriate.
-
March 2, 2009 at 4:57 am #2769319
inappropriate vs doing the right thing
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to it was a stinkin example
most judges are former attorneys
in most jurisdictions, they allow that sort of percentage as a matter of “standard”
when i heard about the tobacco settlement for billions and that the law firm running that was getting billions of that settlement, my first question was: “how many legal clerks and attorneys does it take to add up to $1Bs in fees?”
to me, attorneys’ fees should always be a seperate part of the settlement. it should never be part of the amount the plaintiff wins. especially in a case of someone being hurt and needing lifetime care.
but, what can you do? the system won’t change, especially when the laws overseeing the practice of “fair and reasonable” fees for lawyers is written…by lawyers.
-
March 2, 2009 at 6:05 am #2769296
re:but, what can you do?
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to it was a stinkin example
Join forces with like-minded individuals… then have a party 🙂
-
March 2, 2009 at 6:47 am #2769275
i’m not much
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to it was a stinkin example
of a social butterfly.
i tried being a member of the republican party in my area twice.
in Oklahoma, it was taken-over/run by a group from a local church. my government is not my church, so i don’t make my church my government.
then down here in FL, it was just a lot of retirees wanting to make sure they got all the tax breaks, even tho most of them own $500k+ homes on the beach and don’t need to save money, and think their butts don’t stink after taking a dump. I couldn’t stand the arrogance and self-importance to only want tax cuts and savings for themselves and their situations, rather than their retired bretheren who live in retirement communities and homes and have nothing to show because of situations where their retirement funds were drained by the likes of Ken Lay and other pieces of $hit.
I have never gone to a Democratic meeting, for fear I’d be shunned for being “one of the other party”. So, I don’t align myself with anyone until it is necessary.
I own guns and plenty of ammo. If the day comes I have to defend my property, I can do so.
Until then, let the bloodsuckers run things. Political parties (even the libertarians, who had a candidate who was smart and had good direction…but they chose the “name recognition” candidate in Bob Barr…fools) are just an excuse to let the few at the top power broker and get their way, rather than for all Americans.
Besides if I want to have a party, I’m not inviting a bunch of stodgy people. I’m calling up friends who’ll bring cute women. :^0
-
March 2, 2009 at 7:17 am #2769259
You’re all set then.
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to it was a stinkin example
[i]I own guns and plenty of ammo. If the day comes I have to defend my property, I can do so.[/i]
🙂
-
March 2, 2009 at 7:22 am #2769257
i am indeed
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to it was a stinkin example
and thank god I have lots of chemistry books.
moth balls and ammonia and aluminum-based soaps can make some really cool things. 🙂
glad i studied things when i was younger. knowing how to defend yourself (with and without weapons) comes in handy 🙂
-
March 2, 2009 at 10:29 am #2769161
A sign of the times
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to it was a stinkin example
My mom (61) is looking to get her first hand gun.
Told her where to go to get both the proper training, and the proper hand gun to suit her and her needs.
A snubbie 38 in a ladies model will do her just fine. B-)
I need to get a couple boxes more of ammunition for my sig. Got plenty for the rifle and shotguns. 😀
-
March 2, 2009 at 12:43 pm #2769083
yeah…
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to it was a stinkin example
I just wish I was still in OK or TX now.
In FL, you legally have to shoot them in the front if they enter your home with out permission. By precident, shooting them in the back shows no direct threat to you. You can be held liable for shooting an intruder in the back by FL Law.
In OK or TX…someone steps through your door and has no right or permission to be there…BAM!!! No questions asked.
I wish it was the old west days. People who didn’t work would just starve to death, people who tried to rob ya could just be shot, and the world would be a much better place.
And oh yeah…and in Texas…you could used to shoot your spouse if you caught em in bed with someone else.
Now THAT would be cool…
-
February 25, 2009 at 8:06 am #2765033
i’ve never thought
by jck · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Well there is the line that says it all :)
that the “war on poverty should be left to the private sector”
with private sector comes the likely instance of putting private sector gains over what their clients benefit.
that’s obvious no matter what sector of private industry you look at. profit is their main concern.
government is better at doing things with more concern to their client, because government is responsible to everyone…from Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, down to the homeless guys on the street I met in NYC in 2002.
private industry is only responsible to itself (shareholders) and any regulator authority overseeing it. once regulation is met, however, then all bets are off as to what private industry must do.
put more concern with quality of service?
put more concern with quantity of profit?I would rather stake the war on poverty being fought by government, with all citizens overseeing its operation and making sure it does well enough or not.
-
-
-
February 23, 2009 at 12:10 pm #2768687
A free market society will always produce a poverty level.
by larryd4 · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
If we live in a country that operates on the basis of a free market, then their will always be “a poverty” level. Socialism does a lot better, in theory, of eliminating poverty, since everyone is equal. But the humnan condition proves that their will always be someone who is going to try and take adavantage of the uneducated and/or impoverished person.
Hence the issues with illegal aliens. If jobs that paid below the poverty level didn’t exist we wouldn’t have any illegal aliens trying to get in to the country on the level we have. The minimum wage is their to make sure all is paid above the poverty level. But to make minimum wage you have to be a legal citizen.
-
February 23, 2009 at 1:04 pm #2768654
All sorts of things
by boxfiddler · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to A free market society will always produce a poverty level.
work ‘in theory’, then fail miserably in the broad light of ‘reality’.
-
February 23, 2009 at 1:59 pm #2764202
Not limited to free market societies.
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to A free market society will always produce a poverty level.
Look at the former Soviet Union, Communist China, etc.
-
February 23, 2009 at 1:59 pm #2764201
Sheesh
by dwdino · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to A free market society will always produce a poverty level.
I almost have to bring a shovel with me to clear a path for response.
1) Socialism does NOTHING better. It simply removes any allowance for exceptional people to perform so everyone is restrained to the lowest common denominator.
2) “Free Market” Capitalism creates classes because it shows what people are made of (on the whole). As with any man made system, there will always be abusers. For the most part though, it allows those that wish to accel to do so.
Poverty is permanent until all people internalize two factors – honesty and responsibility.
-
February 23, 2009 at 2:26 pm #2764191
Actually 1 is Marxism
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Sheesh
Though I’ll admit the bit off the top is popular with so called socialist politicians. What they continually and in my opinion deliberately ignore.
If you taxed Bill Gates heavily after making sure his accountants couldn’t find a way for him not to pay, you could use his entire income up funding one anti-poverty program for a year.And they don’t bother with the accountants bit (they use the same ones), so they don’t take it off the top they take it off the middle, us.
Anyone with two brain cells in close proximity could figure this out, so statistically it’s got to be deliberate.
Capitalism is fuedalism writ large, and feudalism maintains class distinctions for the benefit of the ruling majority.
Doesn’t matter how good you are if you are competing with the CEO’s nephew.
-
February 23, 2009 at 2:38 pm #2764184
Correct
by dwdino · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Actually 1 is Marxism
But I have yet to see one socialist attempt that has not resulted in Marxism (or some close proximity). More importantly, any system which fails to reward the risk takers and the over achievers eventually sinks into the abyss.
Interesting points, but I have difficutly determining your stance.
First, taxing Gates as described above would due two things; create an unjust load, and a negative driver for success.
“Capitalism is fuedalism writ large, and feudalism maintains class distinctions for the benefit of the ruling majority.” save one very important thing – capitalism won’t behead you for changing your class.
-
February 23, 2009 at 5:02 pm #2764123
My stance ?
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Correct
I’m a real socialist.
That means I give the community at least the same level of priority as an individual. Anyone who acts against the community’s interest for individual gain, gets a kicking.
Calling yourself a socialist and then ripping off society. Where’s my axe…Call it the right to communal happiness. :p
-
February 23, 2009 at 7:45 pm #2764088
Yes, but
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to My stance ?
[i]Anyone who acts against the community’s interest for individual gain, gets a kicking.[/i]
Does it work the other way too? Should “the community” have the right to determine that what’s in an individual’s best interest is not in the community’s best interest, and deny the individual?
I’m imagining euthanizing the elderly or “undesirables” … or forcing abortions… Not to mention forced labor…
Scary stuff…
-
February 24, 2009 at 5:54 am #2763966
Oh a classic
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Yes, but
If you are say talking about getting rid of grandma. If it’s a communla decision, it’s your grandma as well. Do you think truly think a community would be better off without our grandmothers?
I don’t, I doubt many would.
The “if that old bat was out of the way, I’d have the spare room back” doesn’t scale.
-
February 24, 2009 at 6:29 am #2763952
Just wondering
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Yes, but
if that is a goal for community policy.
The question, perhaps better phrased:
Do the community’s rights override all individual rights?
-
February 24, 2009 at 10:11 am #2764498
No just one.
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Yes, but
The right to harm your community for individual gain.
Too much talk about rights, far too little about duty.
I’m talking about a ‘new’ approach. One different enough to make us look at the way we’ve always done things and question it.
I bet most of the time ‘we’ do it to benefit some fat tw@t who made a sizable donation to some other fat tw@t’s campaign chest.
It’s got to stop.
-
February 24, 2009 at 11:21 am #2764460
Define
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Yes, but
[i]The right to harm your community for individual gain.[/i]
“individual gain”. If I need a hip to walk again, is that considered individual gain?
Define “harm”. Is being lazy considered harm? Is no longer being able to contribute to society considered harm?
-
February 24, 2009 at 2:16 pm #2764361
Hadn’t really thought about it in detail
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Yes, but
But I’m fast coming to conclusion that not taking your communal resposnsibility seriously should carry the death sentence. :p
What is so wrong about helping your community to help yourself. What’s so wrong about helping yourself and in doing so helping your community?
Here’s one measure for you to think about, if you have the bottle to consider something different to the current status quo.
Tax breaks for co-operatives.
-
February 24, 2009 at 8:03 pm #2764251
Nothing wrong with it
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Yes, but
[i]What is so wrong about helping your community to help yourself. What’s so wrong about helping yourself and in doing so helping your community?[/i]
But I’m in a better position to determine how much I can help than anybody else. And in the case of a large country such as this, I am in a better position to determine if (since I know my neighbor, I am more likely to be more aware of his needs), what kind of, and how much help my neighbor needs than some bean counter 1500 miles away. I can also deliver that help more efficiently (It costs me $100 to give my neighbor $100 worth of groceries. It costs the government over $300 to provide the same groceries) and deliver it better and faster.
Here’s a little anecdotal example: About 15 years ago, a small (3,000 population) town near here request buses from the state…saying the elderly in a (gated) assisted living community didn’t have any way to get anywhere. So the state provided two buses, costing almost $250,000, and a budget of $20,000 a year for fuel.
About four months into the year, they sent a request to increase the fuel budget to $40,000. The state decided to investigate, and discovered that the buses were used quite heavily, but that most of the riders never went anywhere. They got on the buses in the morning, rode around all day usually, and got off at the same stop in the evening. They were just tired of being cooped up and lonely! Once they figured that out, they contacted relatives of the residents and community leaders, and worked it out so that many of the relatives would visit more often, volunteers would visit the shut-ins and those with no visitors, and they got rid of both big buses provided by the state, and the village bought their own, smaller bus.
The morals: Sometimes throwing large amounts of money at a problem isn’t the best solution, and you never know if the help you need is in your own back yard unless you ask.
-
February 25, 2009 at 1:57 am #2765203
Ah
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Yes, but
I am not a fan of big money buy offs to cure symptoms.
Particularly when it’s my money. :pWhy were they stuck inside by themselves?
It’s all about outlook and approach. I was employed locally for 19 years, there available to all my family and earning.
Some bugger came along with some sound business thinking, and wrecked that.
Not just for me either. I’d like to create an environment where something like that is considered on more than a bottom line basis, not by saying NO, but by bringing in factors where the bottom line would include, more than we can slim down the workforce by a few thousand, make loads of money and have the remaining tax payers pick up the slack.Address why it was sound business thinking, not throw sound business thinking out of the window, which is pretty much mainstream ‘socialist’ thinking.
Get some long terms benefits, and assesment of long term costs in there. It was particularly galling when you add in how much tax payer help my employer had already had, before they bogged off with the lucre.
-
February 25, 2009 at 7:57 am #2765041
Why
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Yes, but
[i]Why were they stuck inside by themselves?[/i]
Mostly because they weren’t visited often enough by family. I suppose that maybe the “gate” gave the impression that they didn’t want intrusions as well. Miscommunication.
-
February 25, 2009 at 8:00 am #2765035
And doubly particularly…
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Yes, but
[i]I am not a fan of big money buy offs to cure symptoms.
Particularly when it’s my money.[/i]… when it [b]doesn’t[/b] cure the symptoms (and in fact makes them worse!).
-
February 25, 2009 at 9:05 am #2764969
Indeed standard big government cop out
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Yes, but
Throw someone else’s money at the issue, pat self on back no matter what result. In the event of a complaint, loudly state how much of someone else’s money you spent on it.
Capitalist/Socialist dogma is merely the ‘reason’ for this arrant stupidity.
-
February 25, 2009 at 12:50 pm #2763123
You’re right
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Yes, but
Stupidity is an equal opportunity employer 🙂
I like it (not really) when they state, after a failure, that their intentions were good.
Government is like a computer program, and we have every right to expect, and demand that our programs run perfectly and efficiently with little fuss or bother. What we have now though, is more like a virus, that quickly fills all available resources in one country, then spawns copies of itself to infect other countries.
-
February 23, 2009 at 3:59 pm #2764139
Not only that
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Sheesh
[i]Socialism does NOTHING better. It simply removes any allowance for exceptional people to perform so everyone is restrained to the lowest common denominator.
[/i]It removes the motivation for better performers to perform better, thereby lowering the standard of living for every member (Hmm… where have I heard that before)
-
February 24, 2009 at 9:23 am #2764525
-
February 24, 2009 at 11:22 am #2764458
Actually I was recalling
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Good things…
a recent discussion about unions 🙂
-
-
February 23, 2009 at 2:15 pm #2764196
Illegals are parasites on our country
by av . · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to A free market society will always produce a poverty level.
The underground economy. Cash under the table. Day labor. They make just as good a living as a person making minimum wage because they supplement their income by taking advantage of all of our public services and don’t pay any taxes. Neither do their employers. Healthcare, education, etc. is all free to them.
Fortunately, with the economic downturn, alot of them are going back home. The work has dried up. I don’t know if you ever saw this article in the Star-Ledger, but this is how desperate some illegals are.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/01/29/porch.cave/
It shouldn’t be allowed, but it is because there is a market for illegals. No taxes. No laws. Cash under the table. Instead of paying minimum wage for restaurant workers, landscapers, maids, etc., they hire illegals, as needed. Authorities don’t deport them. That undermines the lower-class legal workers in this country. As taxpayers, we end up supporting the lower class and the illegals. Its a no-win situation.
Sure, poverty will always exist to some extent, but I think its time to take a long hard look at who should receive our public services. Sure, theres lots of people content to be on the public dole, but we are not a socialist country (yet).
AV
-
February 23, 2009 at 3:26 pm #2764158
And how many of them. . . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Illegals are parasites on our country
…..have received government guaranteed and government forced mortgages that are now in default?
-
February 23, 2009 at 3:41 pm #2764149
Other numbers I’d like to see
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to And how many of them. . . . . .
How many of those foreclosed homes were second or third homes? How many are in foreclosure because the owner took out equity to buy a Beemer or some other bauble?
-
February 23, 2009 at 4:19 pm #2764131
I don’t think most illegals have mortgages
by av . · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to And how many of them. . . . . .
They’re here for the quick buck. Maybe I’m naive, but I think the housing scams were more perpetrated by legal citizens scamming the system.
AV
-
February 23, 2009 at 5:17 pm #2764122
No? How about 5 million?
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I don’t think most illegals have mortgages
Not to say that those 5 million caused the problem, but it was damn sure a significant part of it.
I have always been critical of President Bush for failing to address the issue (the immigration issue) – just like the presidents before him:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44468
President Obama will, most likely, be no better – maybe even worse in that regard.
-
February 23, 2009 at 7:31 pm #2764094
I would still suggest
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to No? How about 5 million?
[i]have always been critical of President Bush for failing to address the issue (the immigration issue) – just like the presidents before him:
[/i]That illegal immigration would not BE a problem if it weren’t for the socialist-leaning policies that make it attractive for them to come here.
-
February 24, 2009 at 5:22 pm #2764291
Thats nice
by av . · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to No? How about 5 million?
I do remember several years back hearing about that on Lou Dobbs, now that you mention it. But 5 million? I suppose we’ll be bailing them out too.
No president wants to address illegal immigration because its such a political hot potato. If theres a silver lining in the recession, its that many of their illegal jobs have dried up. Many have left the country and many more will follow (I hope).
I think if Bush had initially presented a plan stressing border security instead of a temporary worker program, he wouldn’t have had a problem. That wouldn’t have addressed the 20 million illegals in this country, but we already have laws on the books to address them. All we have to do is enforce existing laws.
I don’t think Obama is even remotely thinking about illegal immigration at the moment. His plate is full. He has to start thinking about border security though on the US – Mexico border. Not a good situation there.
I can’t even imagine what Obama would come up with to solve the illegal immigration problem, but I’m not going to be happy with any kind of amnesty-type program. I want to see our existing laws enforced.
AV
-
February 25, 2009 at 7:00 am #2765079
It’s a problem that’s intentionally NOT being addressed for some reason(s)
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Thats nice
By both parties. At least in my opinion. I wonder about the reason(s).
-
February 25, 2009 at 5:03 pm #2763053
Government will never address the actual illegals
by av . · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Thats nice
They’re a backdoor industry that supplies plenty of cheap labor and skirts our tax laws. They’ll debate it to death though.
AV
-
February 23, 2009 at 3:35 pm #2764153
There are plenty
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Illegals are parasites on our country
of people who make money under the table who are here legally (some of whom make well above minimum wage). That’s a tax avoidance problem, not an illegal alien problem per se. There are also many people making at or above the minimum wage yet don’t work enough hours to make “poverty level”.
The solution to the tax avoidance problem is to make the tax unavoidable. Tax consumption, not income. That way if you’re a drug dealer who made a million dollars a year, you’d pay taxes when you spent it.
The illegal alien problem wouldn’t be a problem if we eliminated minimum wage laws.
-
February 24, 2009 at 5:57 am #2763964
They offer a popular service do they not
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Illegals are parasites on our country
after all they are cheaper so by employing one, you can cut your costs….
The only way to stop it is to make them too expensive. Like crippling fines and jail terms for employing them, anything else is a waste of money curing the symptom.
Giving Juan a good crack round rhe ear before you toss him back over the border, is simply an occupational hazard for him.
-
February 24, 2009 at 7:59 am #2763894
And who should be the recipient
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to They offer a popular service do they not
of these fines? The government?
What of the consumers who will now pay extra twice? Once for the increased labor cost, and once because the business will include the “crippling fines” in their product costs.
Do you suppose the government will turn over that fine money to the consumers of that company’s goods or services? Fat chance! It’ll probably go to some department heads new office furniture.
Stupid, stupid people… “sue them… fine them… make them pay…” don’t they realize that in doing so they’re screwing themselves? Every cost a business has goes into their product.
-
February 24, 2009 at 10:34 am #2764488
WTF
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to And who should be the recipient
So you are in favour of illegal immigrants working then.
Sorry my mistake
-
February 24, 2009 at 11:48 am #2764429
In reality, no
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to WTF
illegal is illegal, but in principle, yes. Everyone should have the opportunity to better themselves, regardless of any artificially imposed citizenship based entirely upon the accidental location of your birth. (They didn’t ask to be born there!)
Also I think we should ultimately be trying to integrate the planet. The best way to do that is via free access (I thoroughly understand that many sovereign nations may object 🙂 ). We should also be working toward eliminating protectionism (which adds to the cost of every imported/exported product, but adds nothing to the quality of that product) as an economic strategy.
The world needs a new kind of government, one that truly holds every human being and all human beings in the highest regard and respect, but none of those currently in existence are quite it. (Actually, I probably shouldn’t have said that, because now you’re going to expect me to explain what I mean… but I’m afraid I can’t. It’s like art… I’ll know it when I see it…)
-
February 24, 2009 at 12:04 pm #2764415
If you are one, Tony
by santeewelding · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to In reality, no
You are competent in my eyes to testify as one.
-
February 24, 2009 at 2:31 pm #2764355
Well I’m missing something here then
by tony hopkinson · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to In reality, no
You seemd to be down on illegal workers, then someone suggest an effective measure (taking any profit out of employing them), and you are whining that you have to pay more for your flip-flops?
Which is it?
If you want the profit from their labour, either directly or indirectly then you are by definition in favour.Having it both ways, is where you are now.
-
February 24, 2009 at 8:12 pm #2764247
-
February 25, 2009 at 8:17 am #2765023
re: Well I’m missing something here
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to In reality, no
Yes… that my reasoning is not economically motivated.
1. I believe everybody has the right to try to better themselves (trying is not guaranteeing…) regardless of where they are or where they’re from.
2. I think that’s what most of these illegal immigrants are trying to do.
3. The fact that they’re willing to work under such poor conditions for so little pay makes me wonder how bad what they’re trying to better themselves “from” could be.
4. As a human being, I worry about sending them back to the “from” mentioned above.
5. I wish we didn’t have (or didn’t need) borders.
-
February 24, 2009 at 1:20 pm #2764381
Wrong, Tony
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to And who should be the recipient
you DO penalize any company that breaks the laws by employing illegal aliens.
There should be both criminal and civil penalties for such criminal activity.
Anyone having anything to do with the illegal hiring should be put in jail, and hefty fines that equate to much more of a savings the illegals would ever have brought them, will discourage companies from doing so.
When the jobs dry up, the flow of illegals looking for WORK will dry up.
Of course, as many are also looking at gangs and drugs as their livelyhood, it won’t effect them at all.
Border security still should be part of the equation. Build the fence, and fill a moat with alligators. B-)
-
February 24, 2009 at 8:22 pm #2764245
-
-
February 24, 2009 at 6:25 am #2763953
Interesting responses but
by larryd4 · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to A free market society will always produce a poverty level.
As a few people have questioned, what defines poverty and also stated poverty occurs across all goverment, social, types.
My point was poverty is a place to be in, a mind set that occurs, and a place in somce cases you are put.
No matter what system we have there will always be mean people, nice people, selfless people, donators, benefactors, people who lie, people who don’t lie, people who don’t care. people who care to much, the list goes on.
Poor people, rich people, people in between, its what makes a society work.
Just like their will always be a black market their will always be a poverty level.
Granted their will be those cases of poeople who lost, whether it occured in the system or out. But most people who have been in “poverty” for more than a year or two will probably end up staying there, because its become them.
Its what makes up our concept of good and evil.
As an example,
Their are people on this board who think Bill Gates is the anti-Christ. Others who think he’s man of the hour.
But facts or not, I’m sure he has fired people and I’m sure at some point in his career, he has used his business powers to put under companies. But on the other hand he is really smart and business savy…So rather then force a poverty issue on government I think it might be smarter to start realizing that we have to look at ourselves and our concept of fair business practices.
-
-
February 24, 2009 at 10:06 am #2764500
As it relates . . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
…..to my three major messages on the subject:
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=302419&messageID=3020272
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=302419&messageID=3020975
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=302419&messageID=3021412
You (Oz) said, [i]”Abject poverty in other countries is exactly what contributes to relative poverty in your own country. That’s the whole point.”[/i]
Well, don’t think you’ve understood my point. Regardless, I totally disagree with what you said, and your supporting argument didn’t convince me. At worst, we can simply agree to disagree.
I still maintain that the best solution for ANY nation to reduce its rate of poverty is to increase its level of economic freedom.
You apparently want to look at is as a global issue, while I want to look at it as a national issue. You apparently have more of a global mind-set, while I don’t. I believe Canada can deal with its own issues better than we can, and vice-versa. As to the causes of wide-spread abject poverty in third-world countries, the two most common underling causes are a tyrannical government and little, or no, economic freedom.
I’m not suggesting that the United States practice isolationism or turn a blind-eye to the problems of abject poverty in under developed nations. But until the circumstances that cause it in the first place are changed – that being, in large part, tyrannical governments and little, or no, economic freedom – there’s little anyone can do – unless, of course, you want Canada’s Army to march in and take over the place and force the bad guys out of power and put the good guys into power. (Ours won’t do it.)
I don’t think we can solve all the problems of the world. And when we do try to help solve some of those problems, I think it’s best to do so from a position of strength and having our own house in order first. And part of getting our own house in order is to stop the madness of creating and perpetually supporting a dependent class. I think we (the U.S.) can show the world that simply throwing money into programs that support poverty will do nothing to solve it, but rather exacerbate it.
Just like during an in-flight emergency, if during your flight the oxygen masks drop from above, help children and others with their masks only after yours is secure.
The best way to help other nations is to be a better example.
The nations that have the highest rates of poverty ALSO have the lowest amount of economic freedom. The nations that score the HIGHEST on the Index of Economic Freedom, also have the lowest percentage of their population living below the poverty line (however measured). The higher the level of economic freedom, the lower the poverty rate will be. I want the United States to top that list again. Canada, by the way, is only one spot behind the USA, while Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland, and New Zealand are ahead.
http://www.heritage.org/index/
You said, [i]”Abject poverty in other countries is exactly what contributes to relative poverty in your own country. That’s the whole point.”[/i]
Like I said, I disagree. And your arguments were far from convincing.
I say, less economic freedom in my country is exactly what contributes to higher rates of relative poverty in my country. Feel free to disagree, but I’m not the only one who sees it that way.
http://www.africanexecutive.com/modules/magazine/articles.php?article=3641&magazine=197
http://www.fsu.edu/news/2006/09/07/economic.freedom/
-
February 24, 2009 at 11:12 am #2764464
Economic freedom without economic independence?
by oz_media · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to As it relates . . . . .
Well that is a solution but it doesn’t detract from my comments at all.
Whether you want to accept my examples or not, they are real life example from trade that I conduct on a daily basis.
1)Third world country’s make many of our day to day goods.
2)Our day to day goods effect our cost of living.
3)Supply and demand, with a reduction of such goods, our costs increase, thus our expenses do also and our luxuries are reduced accordingly.
4)Sickness and disease in third world countries effects the labour force, it is also directly related to poverty levels in those countries.
5)A reduced labour force in third world countries effects the amount of exports to our own.
6)Supply and demand again, reduced product availability, higher prices.
Its SO simple I don’t know who you don’t see the relation. I am not suggesting that it is teh answer to all oru economic woes, not at all, but there is a major contributing factor.
If you only consumed products made in America, I could accept your point, but as you are reliant on the rest of the world to support your economy, how can you possibly suggest that economic issues would be solely internal?
It isn’t logical, no matter how scientific you want to make it, it is just simple economics.
“All wealth comes from resources and resources are in the countryside.”
“America, with 5 percent of the world?s people, consumes 28 percent of the world?s resources. The resources from which all wealth comes are primarily in the undeveloped world, the ?countryside? of the developed world. ”
Though this is not where I got my beliefs on the issue, it offers a similar and somewhat interesting viewpoint anyway : http://www.globalissues.org/article/5/economic-democracy
How do you hope to control an economy that is completely dependent on the rest of the world, without viewing it as a global issue?
Your ecomony is not self-reliant or independent, no matter how much you would like to believe it is, it isn’t and can’t be.
It might be easier for you to look at it this way, if Canada was a very poor nation.
1) We would have a greater level of sickness and disease amongst our people.
2) We would have reduced labour forces and production due to sickness amongst able bodied workers.
3)Our exports costs would soar
4)Your import costs and costs to the consumer would soar accordignly.So if we were all poor and sick, what would the price of gas be at your pumps?
How much would you have to pay for lumber and other trades where strong, skilled workers are required to meet demands?
Do you not see how our economy directly effects your own and how if we were poor, sick, diseased etc. how that would flow to you also?
Would it not be in America’s best interests to support Canadian workers, to sponsor companies in our country and contribute to our workers health and well being? Of course it would be.
-
February 24, 2009 at 11:26 am #2764453
We can always
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Economic freedom without economic independence?
[i]Supply and demand, with a reduction of such goods, our costs increase, thus our expenses do also and our luxuries are reduced accordingly.[/i]
raise minimum wage to $100 an hour! That’ll fix everything!
[oops! forgot the [/sarcasm] tag]
-
February 24, 2009 at 11:38 am #2764441
Huh?
by oz_media · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to We can always
Even as sarcasm it doesn’t make sense. Who’d pay the workers? You would with every product you bought from that company.
As that is not the case, you can pay pennies per hour for third world labour, but that labour needs ot be healthy or your costs rise proprtionately. Not to pass blame on one sole player, but WalMart feeds such a system. They pay less and less for goods, the workers in third world countries earn less, get sicker and manufacturer’s are forced to hire less skilled labour to retain production. Less skilled labour reduces the prodct available, slower workers, and SHOULD eaise yoru costs but in that case, WalMart just pays less or doesn’t have to pay at all due to production clauses and perpetuates the cycle.
Your economical stance and poverty level cannot be internally resolved when it is externally reliant.
-
February 25, 2009 at 7:48 am #2765045
I’m sorry
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Huh?
[i]Even as sarcasm it doesn’t make sense.[/i]
Just that people who think a mandated minimum wage is a good thing should think that a higher mandated minimum wage is a better thing, right?
-
February 25, 2009 at 8:47 am #2764989
-
February 25, 2009 at 9:34 am #2764947
Why not?
by oz_media · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It would make EVERYONE rich
Why would flipping burgers for you not earn someone a living wage?
Because you deem it mindless and useless work? Kinda like working in a factory and building cars on an assembly line? Like mall security guards? Like the labourers who fill the trucks that bring you your daily needs?
Why should only college grads be able to earn a fair living? The problem is that people with any skills at all, expect tpo be paid a mint, when anyone can obtain such skills in short time. Then when someone with no experience or a lack of skills should be left to fester and serve you for life.
The more I listen to you guys, the more I see what a crock of bullsh*t your nation’s promises have become.
Once proudly waving a flag as athe land of opportunity, freedom and liberty, it is now clear that Americans look out for themselves, think only about themselves, are only concerned about their own well being and couldn’t give a rats arse about anyone else but themselves.
Now that is really the view people in other nations have always had of America, self centered, arrogant and selfish.
However when someone says that, an American quickly turns around and proudly shows how much America does to help the world and its own people.
Yet it is all BS and propaganda, Americans don’t really give a crap about other Americans, wouldn’t willingly help the world and are as everyone though, self centered and arrogant.
Blindly seeing only what they need and not caring what it takes or who loses in order for them to gain for themselves.
We see it here in black and white almost every day. Americans fighting for what they feel is thiers and complaining about how others are helped along the way.
Cheap-assed, bottom feeding baystards!
-
February 25, 2009 at 9:44 am #2764943
I think you struck a nerve
by snuffy09 · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It would make EVERYONE rich
I guess that means if you live in “British columbia” you get pair 25$ per hr for flipping burgers? since getting and education should make no difference in your salary…
-
February 25, 2009 at 10:14 am #2764926
Definition
by dwdino · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It would make EVERYONE rich
The problem with these discussions is the definition or understanding of “living wage”.
To me a living wage pays for the following: A one bedroom apartment, a $5000 car, food, water, power, basic clothing (target/walmart).
It does not cover Cable, cell phones, xBox, jewelry, etc.
It is amazing how little it takes if you stick to the necessities. By my standards, $4.50 is a “living wage”.
-
February 25, 2009 at 10:29 am #2764910
Why not? Wake up.
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It would make EVERYONE rich
So, a high school drop-out should make as much as the mighty Oz, even if he is only flipping burgers, while you are working to advance yourself?
The more training it requires to do a job, the more the job is worth.
The higher the profit margin on a product, the more the job pays.
But then again, even you know that without me having to educate you on it.
Opportunity to advance yourself, not opportunity to just stroll into a good paying job.
Go ahead, open a burger joint and pay your staff $20 an hour and see how long you stay in business.
You are so full of sh|t, and so used to just saying things to try to tick people off, that you have lost all sense of reason.
-
February 25, 2009 at 1:04 pm #2763117
Not only that,
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It would make EVERYONE rich
[i]The problem with these discussions is the definition or understanding of “living wage”.
To me a living wage pays for the following: A one bedroom apartment, a $5000 car, food, water, power, basic clothing (target/walmart).[/i]
They can’t even decide who it’s supposed to be for… the college student living at home? The single mother of two? or half of the married couple both working?
I started a thread some time ago that tried to get some answers.
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=8&threadID=201870&messageID=2103742
-
February 25, 2009 at 1:17 pm #2763113
Serious question, really Oz.
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It would make EVERYONE rich
[i]Why would flipping burgers for you not earn someone a living wage?[/i]
Living wage for who, the burger flipper?
What if he was married, should his “living wage” be higher? What if they have 4 kids, still higher?
So what’s going to happen to the burger joint who has 20 employees each with 5 dependents each getting a “living wage” If the one across the street has twenty employees each with NO dependents?
Is that fair to the businesses (who I assume aren’t allowed to discriminate based on having children… in my example it just happened to work out that way)?
Have you ever worked more than one job at a time? Have you ever had a spouse who worked?
Aren’t these viable alternatives to raising the minimum wage? -
February 25, 2009 at 8:46 pm #2762998
Kinda like
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It would make EVERYONE rich
If everyone in the country sent everybody else in the country a dollar, we’d all have $300 million 🙂
-
February 25, 2009 at 9:23 am #2764955
Mandated minimum wage
by oz_media · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to I’m sorry
Removes slavery from our country.
A minimum wage is a fair way of removing slave labour from the workforce and reducing the number of illegal aliens in the workplace.
I couldn’t imagine how utterly useless drive through fast food service would be without a minimum wage.
Kids in college would be screwed, crime rates would escalate, single mom’s would be ripped off big time when re-entering the workplace.
If an employer didn’t have to pay $8.20/hr, they would pay $2 and only the absolute worst, incapable employees would take such jobs, besides those who were capable but with no other options.
How to employ the unemployable, reduce minimum wage.
You have been clear on many things over time.
1) You make enough money to be comfortable now so you couldnt care less about anyone else.2) You (personally) should have the final say on where each of your tax dollars is spent, you feel you should be given an envelope each month for you to ‘donate’ what you deem worthy and where it is allocated.
3)You don’t believe that anyone else should be given a leg up or a helping hand as it is un-American in a dog eat dog world.
4) People should be allowed freedom to do what they want, as long as it coincides with your own wishes.
5) If people can’t make it in a short time and assimilate the ideal American, learn English if necessary, make a suitable living, conduct themselves in a manner which you feel is suitable, they should not be allowed to live in America. (Fascism?)
Not such a pretty picture you’ve painted over time. Very selfish, self centered, egotistical, uncaring,…the list goes on and on, you come across as the epitomy of Ebeneezer Scrooge.
“I have what I need now, leave me alone and f**k the rest of you. Thanks for nothing, America.”
-
February 25, 2009 at 9:59 am #2764935
are you kidding me?
by snuffy09 · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Mandated minimum wage
we have mexicans (Amongst other immigrants) pouring into the usa daily. They get all kinds of government goodies. They get free or reduced Living, education, and Food. What else could you ask for? They can even get job assistance.
It is a free nation and a great one, you dont like it fine, but dont talk smack on us or the other millions of people that have found new opportunities here.
The way you talk is you want to see a big old free-for-all, thats called armageddon when the world is in chaos, no government, laws, or protection. maybe you will be lucky enough to live through this time period.
For now we have to have some kind of a “backbone” of society. Ours is what it is and over many many years has been declaried the most free conutry in the world.
-
February 25, 2009 at 1:24 pm #2763108
[i]. . . . fast food service without a minimum wage. . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Mandated minimum wage
The current federal minimum wage (in the U.S.) for covered nonexempt employees is $6.55 per hour effective July 24, 2008.
The overall median salary at McDonald’s is $8.27 an hour.
They pay what they have to pay in order to get good people to do a good job. Drop the minimum wage to $2.00, as you illustrated, or eliminate it completely, and the overall median salary at McDonald’s would still be $8.27 an hour.
And you can’t imagine [i]”how utterly useless drive through fast food service would be without a minimum wage”[/i]? Interesting.
-
February 25, 2009 at 1:51 pm #2763095
On giving [i]”. . . . .a leg up or a helping hand”
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Mandated minimum wage
Syracuse University professor, Arthur Brooks, in his book, [i]Who really Cares[/i], illustrates how conservatives (Republicans) give about 30 percent more money to charities than liberals (Democrats). And conservative-headed families make slightly less money. And conservatives are 18 percent more likely to donate blood.
ABC’s “20/20” conducted a [i]charity test[/i], and they went to Sioux Falls, S.D., and San Francisco, CA. They asked the Salvation Army to set up buckets at their busiest locations in both cities. Which bucket would get more money, they wondered?
San Francisco and Sioux Falls are different in some important ways. Sioux Falls is small and rural, and more than half the people go to church every week.
San Francisco is a much bigger and richer city, and relatively few people attend church. It is also known as a very liberal place, and since liberals are said to “care more” about the poor, you might assume people in San Francisco would give a lot.
And what happened? Well, even though people in Sioux Falls make, on average, half as much money as people in San Francisco, and even though the San Francisco location was much busier — three times as many people were within reach of the bucket — by the end of the second day, the Sioux Falls bucket held twice as much money.
Source and full context:
http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity?page=1
-
February 25, 2009 at 8:42 pm #2762999
Right, Max
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Mandated minimum wage
[i]They pay what they have to pay in order to get good people to do a good job. Drop the minimum wage to $2.00, as you illustrated, or eliminate it completely, and the overall median salary at McDonald’s would still be $8.27 an hour.[/i]
If employers are so greedy, why aren’t ALL jobs paying minimum wage?
-
February 26, 2009 at 10:29 am #2762360
An interesting outlook
by jdclyde · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Mandated minimum wage
And what a low level opinion you have of employers world wide, that the only reason people get the rate they do is because a bureaucrat somewhere ordered it? Was YOUR rate determined by government mandate, Oz? What makes YOU worth more than minimum wage, if minimum wages are such a grand thing?
Supply and demand. A “few” years ago when I was a young pup, I had moved to Grand Rapids for a summer. In my home town, the burger joints would be advertising their specials to get you to come in.
There, they were advertising for help. The wages was $3 more per hour, they were offering daycare, and college assistance to get people to come work for them.
Minimum wages are how the mentally lazy try to feel better about themselves, pretending to “lift up” someone working that job, but to stupid to realize the market determines the pay.
You can’t legislate a living for people.
-
-
-
February 24, 2009 at 1:12 pm #2764385
Not related, but OMG
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
It really is all about the paperwork…
Many of you know of the trials and tribulations I’ve had with trying to children’s services to do their damned job correctly for the last four years. Well, I climbed the government ladder, finally ending up at the Governor’s wife’s office (yes, I know… she’s not an “official” but she claims to be a child advocate). Well, I got a call today, saying that the Governor’s office has reviewed the agency’s paperwork and concluded that there doesn’t seem to be a problem. Oh, and I have no standing to make a complaint anyway, since I’m not a technically a relative (The children are my ex-wife’s niece’s (I used to change her diapers… I walked her down the aisle, but since my ex-wife decided to find a new Mr. Fluffy, I no longer have any standing?!?!?))
[b]WELL OF COURSE NOT, IDIOT!!! They’re the one’s who screwed up! Do you REALLY think they’re going to put in their report that THEY screwed up??? And It’s relatives who are doing this to these children… What, you can only report child abuse and neglect if, you’re related to the one doing it? Or what, you’re expected to turn yourself in??? What MORONS!!!![/b]
ARRGHH!!!!
I have one more agency to go to before I hit the media.
It just makes me want to scream! Why, when you have someone willing to take care of ALL of these children, would you repeatedly and intentionally put them back into an environment of drugs and violence? How many chances do you get to hurt your children before they’ll do anything except fill out their stupid papers?
I really, REALLY despise what this country is becoming…
-
February 24, 2009 at 1:17 pm #2764383
Did anybody else see this?
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008775541_apwafoodstampchecks.html
Amazing…. They had to have more victimhood in order to qualify for aid… so they manufactured it!
-
February 24, 2009 at 1:45 pm #2764372
It’s like the radio advertizing. . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Did anybody else see this?
…..inviting people to apply for food stamps.
-
February 25, 2009 at 7:24 am #2765066
it’s more then that ;)
by rob mekel · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to It’s like the radio advertizing. . . . .
looks like it was on display yesterday:
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=302582&messageID=3021559
-
-
February 25, 2009 at 7:26 am #2765064
Didn’t
by rob mekel · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Did anybody else see this?
you.
Ok another newspaper but same input or not?
http://techrepublic.com.com/5208-6230-0.html?forumID=102&threadID=302582&messageID=3021559
-
February 25, 2009 at 7:40 am #2765053
Yes,
by tonythetiger · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to Didn’t
but I couldn’t find it later so I thought it didn’t post.
-
-
-
February 25, 2009 at 9:30 am #2764951
There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
by snuffy09 · about 15 years, 1 month ago
In reply to [i]There will always be poverty in this country as long as. . . . . .
There will always be poverty in this country as long as – we need people to ask us if we want fries with our heart stopping meat puck on a bun…
-
-
AuthorReplies