US poverty on track to post record gain

Discussion in 'Other Discussions' started by SmilinSilhouette, Sep 11, 2010.

  1. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    I'm sure this will be blamed on Bush in spite of the fact that dems have been in control of congress for 4 1/2yrs, and a super majority in congress and the hold the white house for more than 18 months, with no sign of improvement. Maybe if we would just borrow and spend more money than in our entire history through the Reagan presidency that would solve the problem. Oh wait, WE ALREADY HAVE! Well, our mistake must be we DIDN''T SPEND ENOUGH! Because that is ALWAYS the answer, if times are tough, borrow and spend EVEN MORE! Keynes was such a genius!

    US poverty on track to post record gain in 2009 - Yahoo! News
     

  2. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    Maybe if people stopped trying to play the blame game or use speculative politics and rhetorical tirades in opposition by virtue of a ridiculous partisan attitude, and instead put their heads together to address issues in a more productive and cooperative manner then perhaps everyone can take responsibility for the state of the nation.

    You know I repeatedly see US political posts on GF where the goal seems to be to goad others into quarrel whilst very loosely tied to some current affair where nobody wishes to solve the problem only to demonstrate why their method is the best or the other method is the worse. It seems often people forget the rudimentary principle of nationhood;



    Is there no middle ground?
     
    Jeanie likes this.
  3. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    For once, Bananas, I will agree with you 100%! I know that I am probably the worst offender here when it comes to the quarreling bit.

    IMO In the past history of the United States we used to agree on the ground rules (the representative republic limited by the US Constitution) but that seems to have been thrown out the window as some sort of passé garbage that only a bunch of old geezers paid any attention to anyways. It truly makes me sad as I believe that it is the foundation upon which the great success of the United States was built. Now the elites of our society have divided us with an entitlement ideology in which government is the sole arbitrator determining "fairness", "equity", and "equality". It would seem that now your proximity and influence with government is the single route to success as we have chosen a path where it is government that will pick the winners and losers.

    I believe we have reached the crossroads and the time is now to choose our path forward: Will it be a return to the ideals that made us the shining light that others saw as the beacon of individual freedom and liberty, where all citizens were created equal, where each individual was limited by only the limits they placed upon themselves, where a person of the most modest means could endeavor to overcome all obstacles and succeed? Or will it be one of spoiled entitlement where we expect our neighbor to carry our load and reap the benefit of the fruits of his labor all the while demanding ever more and being satisfied with nothing?

    Sadly, I don't see much room for middle ground unless we can, once again, agree on the ground rules.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2010
  4. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    I appreciate the sentiment, although I feel you are agreeing without truly understand what I am trying to demonstrate, please read on...


    Why a crossroads? <<<this is the division I highlight. Why not have one road forward that you and your patriots can progress along, are the ideals of society so divided such a task is impossible?** Take this thread for example, from the title it is clear that you and probably 99.9% of all people would agree that poverty should be minimised, so there it is, that is your road right there. It is not a crossroads, it is a goal, you can either work towards it or work against it.

    **if so you can ask then are the ideals so extreme and unyielding that there is no room for compromise.

    ...and this is the paragraph where I feel you're not 100% agreeing with me only highlighting what you regard as the subversive nature of those you disagree with whilst presenting your own idea in some narcissist manner. Ive put your keywords in bold for you.

    You know Im glad I can take my neighbours burden, it means the poorest members of society can enjoy the fruits of my success form the liberties and freedom I enjoy. What exactly does poverty mean in the free world? One car and a 32" TV. Is this the spoiled entitlement you refer to? Perhaps though the alternative is to have the slums of Cairo or Mumbai hustled outside every US city, where people despite all the liberty and freedom in the world dont have a rats chance.

    I should also explain how they should be demanding more, if we can raise the lowest bar of our societies how great is that? Clearly the disparity between rich and poor must always retain some capacity and given the amazing story western humanity has had in the last 60 years then there is plenty of room for manoeuvre. Should people be content with 1 car and 1 TV, then that is their prerogative but nobody should be content with nothing because they have no choice for more.

    To better society. Make the rich richer and the poorest less poor. The ground rules are obvious.
     
  5. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    OK, I'll take your word for that. On a personal note, my agreement and admission of my "quarrelsome" attitude was in hope that we could put past insults behind us and try to discuss our differences in a more civil manner. I'll get back to this later.
    First, I guess it depends upon how you might define poverty. To me poverty is lack of adequate food, shelter, and clothing. It is not the minimization of this poverty upon which we disagree, for me it is the proper role of government in that reduction. I feel "redistribution" is not the proper role of federal government.
    OK, that is fine that we may not have the agreement that I proposed. Now this is where I will discuss the insulting nature of debate. Please understand this is not totally directed at you and I will provide examples using other's statements about me before I address what I have put in bold. Here on GF I have been directly called and/or compared to Hitler, Stalin, and called a racist and islamophobe among other degrading things, simply because of my view of the proper role of federal government and my position on various topics. Also, frequently my arguments have been mischaracterized and restated as the most vile and dispicable postition as if my goal is to keep others down in order to promote myself. Recently my statement was turned around by someone I consider as a friend as a choice between either I support the bad choice or the evil choice, no other option. Now I will address your statement as a question. When I don't agree with someone's position or the direction that I feel the US is heading does that automatically mean that I view them as "subversive"? If I hold a certain position about the proper role of government does that mean I am narcissistic? Do you see how your statement could be seen by me as an attack on me personally based upon a mischaracterization of my position?
    That's great, and in a free society it is your choice how and how much you will contribute the fruits of your labor towards relieving your neighbor's burden. To me that is the proper place for charity: the individuals choice how to distribute the fruits of their labor. To me it is not charity to use government to take from some in order to give to others. To me that is not the proper role of government to decide who should have how much and to take and redistribute that government defined "excess" to those that the government deems more "deserving".
    Are those the ONLY choices? The spoiled entitlement to which I refer is the expectation that those that have OWE the fruits of their labor to others who do not have as much.
    To me it is in the demanding of more in the form of equality of outcomes, not the idea which I agree with: the equality of opportunity. I don't believe that in our country that we "have no choice for more" nor do I believe that anyone should be content with nothing, but at the same time I don't feel that there should be the expectation that basics are to be provided, almost everyone of ability should be expected to contribute to the best of their ability to their own well-being and basic needs.
    Maybe to you, but it would seem that there is disagreement about the proper role of federal government in this regard. I feel these decisions are not to be made by federal government in our system of a representative republic. I believe that these guidelines are well defined by the US Constitution as what is the proper role of our constitutionally limited federal government. It is the "reinterpretation" of these rules made to bend and fit certain political agendas that I object to.
    ------
    Just to clarify my position on this topic: I feel this increase in poverty is a direct result of misguided government intervention in the free market. PLEASE NOTE: I did not place the blame on either political party but upon government meddling as a whole! It is my opinion that the more politicians meddle and try to pick and choose, the worse it gets. Power drunk republicans that have been promoting big government "solutions" are just as much to blame as anyone else. I believe that it is the resourceful, inventive, entrepreneurial spirit of everyday Americans that will rescue our country from this debacle, if only government will get out of their way and quit threatening and intimidating those that will unleash American exceptionalism. Getting government out of the way will provide the opportunity to turn things around and get this country back on the path of lower unemployment and greater opportunity for all Americans.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2010
  6. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    Those are the basic premises of absolute poverty, however poverty is also relative to the society it sits within. A trailer park or project in the US where unemployment is high, drugs are rife and infant mortality is double the national average is in my opinion poverty. Sure they have food, shelter and clothing and in comparison to absolute poverty a fairly comfortable lifestyle... but the big important difference... they are Americans and if I was an American I would not be content to call those conditions adequate.

    The article you posted in the OP, was titled "US Poverty" I cant see within the article what the defining factor of that is but I'd hazard a guess and say one of the factors would be something like families earning less that $18k pa, if you can find the exact details then great, but lets be realistic to what the yard stick is and its a lot more than just adequate food, shelter, and clothing.

    I assure you they were not insults and as I clearly highlighted in bold they were a representation of your character. It was you who put those words in that paragraph and it was I who highlighted your pitfall. You have expressed this in this paragraph, so take heed to what I say as I have absolutely no reason to insult you.

    What you are demonstrating is what I view as the American problem, it is not just the bipartisan nature it is the relentless disagreeing. Not everything in governance is going to go your way but is important that you always work towards the way it does go, otherwise you will only ever loose.

    Anyway back to what you were saying, if you use terminology as you did in that paragraph, it does not open discussion it just offers an opinion. It does not say here is the target, these are the boundaries and this is where I stand on the subject. All you have offered is the last bit, where you stand, if you agree with the first part of paragraph you are on this side of the fence with me, and if you agree with the second part you you are on that side of the fence with them.... how on earth is anybody supposed to agree or find a middle ground, you've already drawn a line in the sand and said there is no middle ground.

    You're either with us or against us; a shining lights of idea of liberty and freedom, or spoilt, expectant, demanding and greedy! ..... can you now see why I profiled you the way I did?

    You live in a democracy of over 300 million, it is not all about you.

    Now if you want to take this as insult please do, its sometimes easiest to be blunt; what you say is all well and true, but times have moved on, we, well I know I live in a society where the standards of living are very high and those who fall outside those standards are helped by others, the bar has raised, we have immense wealth and enough wealth to go around that it does not have to be a burden on anyone, if you find it a burden on you then all the more reason it should not have to be. Ive never understood why people oppose this principle.

    You see economic distribution as owing somebody something?

    The choices are determined by the social context they fall within, you are in the US, they should therefore fall within that context.

    I disagree with this. When unemployment is as a high as it is and there are genuine people who want to make a living Id prefer to keep the morons who are content to live life in the fringes of poverty out of the work place, give the jobs to those who want them, those who don't give them the measly lifestyle they are content with. I'd prefer to employ the man who want to better life for his family than the guy who is just making ends.

    I disagree to having such rules to begin with, politics should be determined by the malleable nature of society not by the rules of yester year.
     
  7. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    They also have the equality of opportunity to raise themselves up from those conditions that you may consider less than adequate. I believe they should be given a hand up, not a hand out. I am a teach a man to fish, not a give a man a fish type guy as I feel handouts just create comfort in dependency, not incentive to achieve and earn more.

    For me the only remaining item is the equality of opportunity. It is up to the individual to take advantage of that oppportunity or to decide to do nothing and remain in squalor. I am willing to help those that would endeavor to help themselves.

    Great, I will take your word that it was not your intent to insult. However, your misrepresentation of my feelings as those that don't agree with my OPINION are SUBVERSIVE and my OPINION is NARSSISTIC is your opinion. I'll just leave it at that.

    I merely stated my OPINION.

    idea of individual freedom and liberty, and only you will know why you choose to "profile" me they way you do. I can only guess about your intentions.

    NO, I live in a representative republic of over 300 million, there is a big difference. I never said it was all about me. I am expressing my opinion. Isn't that what this forum is all about?

    I do not oppose people helping each other, and if you lived next door to me you would understand that. I am opposed to the bastardization of limited government to achieve that goal.

    No, I see the attitude of entitlement as those that feel entitled as them feeling that they are owed. I see government forced economic redistribution as wrong and a concentration of power to the formerly political, now ruling class, as unAmerican and wrong.

    They should fall in the context of the rule of law, the foundation of which is the US Constitution.

    Then we can just agree to disagree.


    Again, then we can just agree to disagree. To me (meaning it is my opinion) the US Constitution is not the "rules of yester year" but the foundation of all law in the US and just as valid today as when they were ratified.

    And I will copy and paste my previous post as you and I were posting at the same time: Just to clarify my position on this topic: I feel this increase in poverty is a direct result of misguided government intervention in the free market. PLEASE NOTE: I did not place the blame on either political party but upon government meddling as a whole! It is my opinion that the more politicians meddle and try to pick and choose, the worse it gets. Power drunk republicans that have been promoting big government "solutions" are just as much to blame as anyone else. I believe that it is the resourceful, inventive, entrepreneurial spirit of everyday Americans that will rescue our country from this debacle, if only government will get out of their way and quit threatening and intimidating those that will unleash American exceptionalism. Getting government out of the way will provide the opportunity to turn things around and get this country back on the path of lower unemployment and greater opportunity for all Americans.
     
  8. Bananas

    Bananas Endangered Species

    If people are comfy being dependent then let them be, if that is their greatest achievement, their incentive or ambition in life then they do not deserve to have the capacity to fish.

    As I have made clear poverty is all in the context. Myself I would prefer to live in a society where there is no squalor and the poorest member despite choosing to do nothing is comfy within their existence.

    Then why did you write what you wrote it in that paragraph?

    For the record Im not being opinionated, I am being observant. When you put letters together they form words, those words make sentences and those sentences have definable definitions. I merely pointed them out to you.


    No I think you will find the representative republic you live in is a form of democracy.

    A forum is a place for having discussions. Would you like it if we discuss your opinions?

    So how do you propose that goal is reached?

    Yet you create a thread blaming the government for an increase in poverty? ..either they have a responsibility or they dont.

    ...as for the unAmerican comment. Im sure a lot of Americans will disagree with you.


    It seems your constitution is holding you back.

    Here is a thought for you; if welfare distribution was done at state level, would you still disagree with it?
     
  9. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    I agree with this for the most part. Of course the problem is it's extremely difficult to get everyone to agree what is the best way of going about resolving poverty (I don't believe poverty CAN be eliminated but that is a subject of a different thread). At the same time, there are many who feel while benevolent many policies have done more harm than good in spreading poverty and when they try to bring that up they're accused of playing the blame game which it really isn't.


    This is a really good question and one that is somewhat difficult to answer. I would probably say I may disagree with it in the sense that it does more harm than good but it wouldn't be unconstitutional, depending on that state's constitution of course.
     
  10. SmilinSilhouette

    SmilinSilhouette Registered Member

    Once again we can agree to disagree. I do not believe in providing comfort in dependency, but I do believe that all should be offered the capacity to fish, what they do from there is up to them.

    again, same as above.

    I know what I wrote and what I meant by it, your interpretation is up to you.

    A very specific form of democracy. I won't insult you by providing definitions as I'm sure you know the difference.

    Isn't that what we have been doing?

    By individuals deciding for themselves how, when, and where. Not a federal government making those decisions and forcing those decisions upon the tax paying citizens.

    Because it is my belief that what they are doing is counter-productive. It is better left to each individual to decide how they wish to address the situation, not to have that decision made for them.

    as is their right

    That may be your opinion, one that I do not share.

    Maybe, but the local level is the level that I believe it should be addressed. I will take this a bit further and explain why I feel this way. First, that is the way our representative republic was designed to operate. Second, if I don't like it then I have much greater influence with State and Local representatives than those at the federal level. Third, if I find it so objectionable then I can choose to relocate to a state more to my liking without renouncing my citizenship in the country that I so love.
     

Share This Page