Everything in moderation. [-o<
Well, I thought I made that pretty explicit. The reason is that the poor people in the United States don't suffer enough to justify all this hand wringing about how we have to change society. They just don't. If you want to look at poor people that are in such desperate trouble that their Governments ought to consider radical action, you have to look outside the United States.
All the poor people in the U.S. are either 1.) Getting plenty enough support from the State already, 2.) Don't need support from the state because 'poverty line' calculations are bullshit and they are doing fine, or 3.) Legitimately need help, and the money to help them is already in the current welfare system if we'd make a minimal effort to reduce corruption. "3" is by far the smallest of the three groups.
This is just a bunch of mouthy, conservative hating bullshit containing no point that I can possibly respond to without sinking to your level. Moving on, in search of a point to address.
Why do we need to take either view to its extremes, and why are we evaluating views in terms of their extremes? I don’t see how this is relevant to what I’ve said. If you think I’m some sort of libertarian laissez-faire type, I’m not.
Not really- you seem to have just stopped short of actually making a point. Again, I just have to restate my point because nobody on your side has addressed it. Income disparity isn't an evil in itself. It's not evil that one guy has 1,000,000,0000,000,000,000 dollars and another guy has 6 dollars just by virtue of the arithmetic. IF there's an evil in it, an injustice in it, it has to be because the guy with 6 dollars is suffering and the guy with a zillion dollars could help him. [i]Poor people in the U.S. aren't suffering enough to justify overhauling the economic system[/i]. Working at Wal-mart is not 'toil' or 'slavery' or 'serfdom'- leftists just have to say that it is in order to justify still being economic leftists. ONLY being able to eat at Burger King three times a week isn't starvation- the biggest health problem American poor people suffer from is [i] obesity[/i], not scurvy or rickets or or other malnutrition issues.
There is a point where economic leveling moves past helping the poor, and moves into taking wealth away from the rich just because you resent the rich. My point is just that we're long past that point.
Why are you saying all these things about me as a person when you don't know anything about me at all? I have a four year degree in political philosophy from a liberal university specifically because I AM willing to consider positions like PK's. In all likelihood, I know more about leftist/socialist/progressive thought than [i]you[/i] do, which is why I'm [i]against[/i] it. Meanwhile, you're inventing a fantasy story about the kind of man I must be because I have a different political opinion than you.
Actually, those are the words that you stuck in my mouth on your last post, so that you could shoot them down in this post. It’s like a strawman but even worse because I already shot it down for you before you could attack it.
If you're going to become full of rage whenever you encounter a political opinion you don't like, why in the world are you here. Pay attention now- if you treat
other posters here the way you just treated me, you will NOT be here for long.
Really? An uncited freedictionary.com quotation makes you feel bad ass enough to drop the mike and walk off the stage? Haha, ok. But hell, it's the closest you came to attempting to address anything of substance I said, so yeah, I guess that's as good as it was going to get.
If you are talking about people who are suffering and unable to feed themselves, then you aren’t talking about 99% of all Americans, period. You’re talking about a tiny little minority of Americans who could be helped by shoring up just a bit of the corruption in the current welfare system.
Most people in the lowest income bracket are there for 10 years or less in the U.S. If poverty is relative, then the poor people in the United states ARE NOT POOR relative to the poor people in just about every other part of the Earth. You're the one that's arguing absolutes, not me- they meet your financial statistic of 'poor', so objectively something must be done. To you. I'm the one saying that, label them 'poor' all you want, they are relatively well off and the idea that most of them need something from the State is not just incorrect, but [i]super obviously incorrect if you make a minimal effort to look at poor people in the U.S.[/i].
You're missing the obvious upshot here that some of the Wal-Mart workers were well-off enough to donate to others to help pay for their Thanksgiving dinners (as well as their own, one assumes). Oops. But yeah, other than that glaring oversight on your part, you demonstrate the problem with the left very well here. The idea that the people who need help might be paying loans, or might be in a household where their spouse just lost their job, or might have just had their house burn down or a huge medical issue or any of a million other temporary issues not representative of their income never even crossed your mind, did it? You saw this news snippet and thought "People who work at Wal Mart can't afford thanksgiving dinner because they aren't paid enough". It's simplistic. It's bereft of actual reasoning or acknowledgement of reality. Even the tiniest injection of empiricism would have kept you from making this ridiculous claim.
K; : UM, missing the point. It is an understanding of what is happening to 99% of all americans.
It is not about an entitled attitude which is the common misunderstanding to this.
if people are suffering, unable to feed themselves, that is what I am talking about.
[/quote]
U: If you are talking about people who are suffering and unable to feed themselves, then you aren’t talking about 99% of all Americans, period. You’re talking about a tiny little minority of Americans who could be helped by shoring up just a bit of the corruption in the current welfare system.
K: I confused you by my statement. First of all, we have 99% or mittens 47% depending on who does the counting,
we have those people who are overworked and underpaid who are by every single standard you care to use, serfs.
There is no other way to put it. They have no mobility because there is no freedom to escape the system. It is not
an entitlement issue, it is a being used and abused issue and you seem not to understand the difference.
It is not about those who feel entitled, (who actually are the wealthy like George bush jr and mittens who
feel entitled not the poor or working poor) AS for the hungry it is not a tiny minority, There are some estimates as
to it being close to 15% of all americans. That is over 30 million people and it is not about welfare cheats because that
is a lie that has gone on since Reagan. The so called welfare queen (always black, not racism there!) doesn’t exist due to
changes in the law during the Clinton years. If you believe it does exist, then the burden is on you to prove that the
welfare queen does actually exist and I want names, not anecdotal evidence, actual evidence.
K: Being poor as with EVERYTHING is relative. They are not only poor but they have no chance of improving their lives.,
[/quote]
U: Most people in the lowest income bracket are there for 10 years or less in the U.S. If poverty is relative, then the poor people in the United states ARE NOT POOR relative to the poor people in just about every other part of the Earth. You’re the one that’s arguing absolutes, not me- they meet your financial statistic of ‘poor’, so objectively something must be done. To you. I’m the one saying that, label them ‘poor’ all you want, they are relatively well off and the idea that most of them need something from the State is not just incorrect, but super obviously incorrect if you make a minimal effort to look at poor people in the U.S..
K: You would help your argument if you stop bringing in people from around the world and stick to the U.S because
it is arguing apples and oranges. You cannot compare poor in somilia with poor in the U.S and the poor in France because
they are in different places with different situations. The poor in France is covered from cradle to grave whereas in somila
they just die and the U.S is closer to Somila then france. By keeping the comparision to the U.S, you have a better sense of
what I am talking about. WE have poor in the U.S that need our help, if can’t even begin to help them, what can I do to help
the billions of poor around the world?
K: witness the fact that Wal-mart actually had signs up asking workers to donate to other workers so they can have
a thanksgiving dinner. They are not paid enough to afford a decent thanksgiving dinner and wal-mart even acknowledge
that by their sign.
[/quote]
U: You’re missing the obvious upshot here that some of the Wal-Mart workers were well-off enough to donate to others to help pay for their Thanksgiving dinners (as well as their own, one assumes). Oops. But yeah, other than that glaring oversight on your part, you demonstrate the problem with the left very well here. The idea that the people who need help might be paying loans, or might be in a household where their spouse just lost their job, or might have just had their house burn down or a huge medical issue or any of a million other temporary issues not representative of their income never even crossed your mind, did it? You saw this news snippet and thought “People who work at Wal Mart can’t afford thanksgiving dinner because they aren’t paid enough”. It’s simplistic. It’s bereft of actual reasoning or acknowledgement of reality. Even the tiniest injection of empiricism would have kept you from making this ridiculous claim.
[/quote]
K: Facts have a liberal bias. People in Wal-Mart can’t afford thanksgiving dinner because they aren’t paid enough.
In California where I live, just from Wal-Mart it cost the state of California over 80 million dollars because Wal-Mart employees are on food stamps and other such programs because they aren’t paid enough.
As for the sign for employees given to help other employees, it didn’t occur to Wal-Mart as well as to you, that
the employees are not paid well enough to give, but I have noticed those most in need often give more of what they
have to help others. AS for your other parts, I have been homeless. I have gone two weeks with only a jar of peanut butter
to hold me over. I have seen people be destroyed by conditions such as you described and you have as little sympathy for them
as you do for those who are hungry. I recently went through multiple surgeries and the total cost was well over
300,000 dollars. I know of people who were crushed by similar events and that is why I am in favor of the new
health coverage laws known as Obamacare. Anyway I am wondering why you have so little sympathy for those who are
hungry? Your bitterness can be seen in your words. You are actually angry over this and I don’t understand why?
Kropotkin
Yeah Ucc, it’s like you either don’t understand or you don’t know what you’re arguing for. I’m worried about you man.
Ironically this fuckstick says I’m addressing it, and then DOESN’T RESPOND. Mocks me when I define a word for the child, since it clearly doesn’t understand the implications of the word, then leaves on ’ ‘nuff said’.
And I quote:
“Serfs with ipads bitching about how bad they have it”
“something needs to be done about this entitled attitude”
“the poor in some place where the poor actually suffer.”
These are quotes from the fuckstick’s opening post. A clear demonstration of respect, understanding and willingness to communicate. Rest assured, it has credentials, so what it says is well founded.
Hi fuckstick, I know I said I was going to stop communicating with you, but I can’t resist.
I treat YOU with disrespect because YOU earned it. I spoke with Neither Nor who agrees with you, differently than I did you. Why? Because YOU’RE a fuckstick.
It’s not surprising that in 4 years you didn’t learn a thing.
Wow…
This is even better than when I debate Relativity with the Scientism fundamentalists. 
How easy it is to divide the waters and watch all of the Egyptians drown fighting themselves over their own polarized issues.
…a little hint;
“It ain’t black or white, no matter how extreme it might be.”
Sorry Uccisore,
I’m a dick. I disagree with you vehemently but I know you’re not the devil.
I’m angry about other shit.
James,
For all intensive purposes, there’s blacks and whites.
How many planet vaporizing comets ought we desire to encounter Earth?
As soon as a person is rational and reasonable, there’s blacks and whites.
Black and white are descriptions. Attributes of things. We define them by physical referents.
You say there’s no black and white, I’m not buying it.
After a good night sleep, I am ready to try to explain this again.
There are people in the U.S who are hungry and they are in the millions
and there are people who are serfs and they run into millions more, there
is no disputing this. It is like climate deniers who deny that climate change is manmade,
it is, simple as that. My reason for posting what I did is to get people to wake up to this
idea and get to the point where they realize there is a problem.
Now a lot of people seem to think there is no problem at all.
there are no hungry people in the U.S and everyone loves their job and can’t
wait to go to work making minimum wage. They are millions of people who
have shitty jobs who make very little and are stuck there or they can only get
another shitty job making very little. Millions are trapped in their shitty jobs
with little pay and few if any benefits, that my friends is being a serf.
Now many will deny this, but denying this doesn’t change the fact that people
are suffering in shitty jobs and people are hungry. The question is, what are we
going to do about it? deny it? Pretend it doesn’t happen? Well, conservatives seem to
believe the reality in their head far more than the reality on the ground, but I am not
one who believes the make up shit in my head more than the reality on the ground.
So once again, what are we going to do? I say modest tweaks aren’t enough because that
idea is simply made up shit in one’s head again. I say the problem is far more than simple
legal or legislative actions, it is time for long term system wide change that involves all of us
because all of us whether we realize it or not is being impacted by the system fuck going on right now.
Kropotkin
Okay .
This is where you lose people. Clearly, there are not millions of serfs in the US.
serf: an agricultural labourer bound by the feudal system who was tied to working on his lord’s estate.
Actually, it’s very complicated. You want it to be simple.
No, that’s not being a serf. And the fact that someone thinks that their job is shitty is beside the point. People have jobs to get money so they can buy food, shelter, etc. They don’t have to like their jobs.
You want a change but you don’t know what it will or should look like. That’s a recipe for disaster.
I would say that in a democratic system, legal and legislative actions are the ones to pursue.
You have one very valid point. Walmart makes huge profits but it pays its employees so poorly that they are dependent on charity and government subsidies. Walmart also works hard to stop unionization and any activities aimed at getting better wages.
actually they are serfs. Just not agriculture serfs, but serfs nevertheless.
MY point to write this is not to find a solution, but to get people to wake up.
I am writing to get people to understand that there is a problem, the first step
is always getting people to understand that there is a problem and there is, now
you can say no or argue definitions but that doesn’t change the fact there is a problem.
I am defining the problem in an attempt to get people to understand what is the nature
of the problem.
Kropotkin
This is the problem:
Yet Presumption is the seed of ALL sin/“error in judgment”.
And attitude empowers it into the darkness of blind rage.
RM:AO; Absolute zero quality can never exist a-n-ywhere, ever ([size=85]with the possible exception of WalMart[/size]).
PK has been right on just about every issue he has been arguing but Ucc is merely reacting to the extreme emphasis that PK and Joe display with an opposing extreme emphasis. And although arguing with extreme emphasis can alter awareness, it almost never wakes anyone up despite the need.
And I can’t help noting that the “hungry Americans” are NOT the more serious problem. As you are arguing about this, and at this very moment, there are people who I have met out on the streets illegally sleeping behind bushes, under bridges, in boxes, and often in merely a blanket or sleeping bag exposed to the 30 degree whether, rain, wind, insects, chemical air, and diseases. They can all get food, although of poor quality. They do not starve to death. At least one of them died last night and all of them are on their way to that death due merely to exposure to an intentionally hostile environment.
And even the very few who are there by what could be called their own “free choice”, only chose it because of their perceived alternative being worse; Comply or Die. Most of them very seriously didn’t want it and can’t do anything to get out of it, so for many “Comply” isn’t even an option. Most were chosen even from birth to be where they ended up because of other extreme efforts to judge and be rid of the other guys, the “bad guys” through the idea of “pre-crime” predictions.
In an economic sense, the problem is the act of pushing the wealthy to be more wealthy before ensuring that the poor don’t get more poor. If the trinkets that the wealthy are producing in order to gain more power and wealth were more specific to ensuring that the poor were less in danger of dying, it would be a different story. But there would still be serfdom and slavery until the wealthy produce such trinkets that ensure less slavery (which they don’t do because slavery is power).
No. That's a subjective and emotionally driven statement, you just can't stick a fucking percentage onto your personal prejudices and act like it's a fact. I'm poor as hell, and I'm not underpaid and I'm not a serf.
That you think so is what makes you an ideologue that is almost impossible to talk to. Refusing to even acknowledge that another point of view exists makes it fruitless to communicate with you unless it’s to say ‘me too’.
Flat out false. People in the lowest income bracket only tend to stay there for 10 years or less, and the same is true of people in the top 1%. So whether you’re talking about the very rich, or the very poor, the idea that there is no mobility is completely false- you made it up, there’s no statistic to back it- presuming you’re talking about the United States.
For how long? Why? Where did these 'some estimates' come from? What are some of the OTHER estimates that you aren't telling me about? Your numbers are self-serving BS and you know that. Your arguments are weak because you never speak to anybody who disagrees with them.
Actual evidence like an uncited statistic pulled out of my ass, or do I have a different standard of evidence than you do?
Of course I can compare them- the poor in Somalia are actually starving to death and desperately need help. The vast majority of poor people in the United States are not in that situation at all. That is the [i]truth[/i]. Why can't I compare them? Because it fucks up your argument?
Ah, I see. So I can’t compare the poor people in the U.S. to those in Somalia, but YOU can when it serves your end.
You didn't demonstrate that as a fact, you just [i]stated[/i] it. Some people working at wal mart couldn't afford thanksgiving dinner for SOME reason- and other people working at wal-mart apparently could afford to help them. Also, while I'm on the subject....so what? *I* couldn't afford a thanksgiving dinner (other things to spend my money on), and I don't care because I'm doing just fine.
A bunch of people who work at Wal-Mart are taking food stamps. What percentage of them actually need those food stamps, as opposed to just taking them because they can? I'm not putting forward a speculation, I'm asking you how in the world you can possibly assume that they all need the program they are taking advantage of, other than because you aren't used to talking to people who would question it.
So what? “There’s no such thing as poor people” or “there’s no such thing as hungry people” or “there’s no such thing as homeless people” has at no point been a part of my argument. Bringing it up now has nothing to do with anything. it fails to interact with anything I said in any substantial way. You’re just soapboxing.
I repeat- the vast majority of people in the United States that you call poor don’t need anybody’s help. The few that do need help are either already getting it (as you admit with your welfare comment), or else they could get it with existing funds if corruption was dealt with.
My bitterness is towards people like you who make shit up, use delibrately misleading statistics to avoid facing reality, and then try to paint anybody you disagree with as hating the poor. Do you understand that neither of us are running for office? Trying to denigrate me and make me look a certain way accomplishes nothing. I’m interested in picking apart your terrible, shitty arguments, not defending what you think of me as a person.
My offer still stands- any time you actually want to have a conversation with me about matters of substance instead of… whatever the fuck you call the above, I am not hard to reach.
Why? It’s really easy.
Peter and Joe,
Keep on keeping on.
a fellow planeteer.
I tried to post three different times and kept losing it because I am very inept using
a computer. I fucking hate going to the numbers because I always fuck up the post when
I do it, so give me a couple of days and I will bore the shit out of everyone by bringing in
income levels along with starvation both worldwide and in the U.S. Man, I hate this shit.
Kropotkin
I’ll debate you on any topic; but just so you know, before the debate even begins I’ll quickly sum up my position and declare that it would be a waste of time to go further being the inadequacy of any counter argument you could possibly come up with.