Nah barbaric is not really the term I would use for myself. Cold and overly analytical maybe I don't really know how to quote sections either, guessing its some htmlish tag like replace < with ] for php maybe. Either way I have lots of sympathy for people who really deserve it and haven't forfeited their right to it by being a monster.

Certainly poverty isn't helped when 2% of the global population owns half of the world's wealth.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6211250.stm

I am touched while reading the responses to this thread.

I also feel a little humble by the wealth of feeling,
Thank you all for considering my naive argument and pushing it beyond my expectations

Please , keep your thoughts coming. this is important.

Marcus

PS I must be the most useless communist on the planet, i don't even like the idea,
BUT. Can we in a Western. life rich culture, turn our backs on the poor who deliver out pizza , make our computers, and farm our food,


Can we in all conscience let them starve for a few bucks a week.
Remember, the difference in price goes to the rich shareholders, I would pay an extra 20% on everything I buy , but if i did it wouldn't make a difference to the poor slaves that create ore lifestyle,

It would all go to the Slave Drivers. those that manufacture our pleasure things.

If only we could all be Madonna, and snatch just one potential slave into our world.

But most of us chose to breed arrogant little consumers, just like us.

Take a leaf out of the 'Greek Book of Really Ace Politics'

Ancient Greece was considered to be one of the best examples of Democracy. Wait most people fail to tell you was that it was a democracy built upon slavery. If you were a slave, you didn't get paid and didn't vote. You did however have a decent 'welfare' system; you got fed, watered and sheltered and a job for life.

Personally, I think it's a great idea, get all those lazy good-for-nothings off their backsides and get cleaning the streets and doing the crappy jobs that no-one wants to do.

As for me, I'm poor. So how can I have my opinion whilst being one of the poor? Easy. I was in the Military and made the Penultimate Sacrifice. I'm not dead, but I'm no longer able to work due to injury etc... etc... They treat us living/disabled War Veterans like dirt here in the UK, but at least I've got a house, a car, the beautiful countryside of the English/Scottish border, a great village pub and enough money to get by on etc...

heheh, I've done my bit for Queen and Country (well, Tony B.Liar anyway), so I can now sit here and preach to everyone else  

I have delievered Pizza before. I have not ever been a poor person. Inside the U.S. the only able bodied people I have seen that were poor not because of themselves were children. Mostly folks just call themselves poor cause they are wealthier than their neighbors.



I own stock and I am in one of the lower tax brackets. I maybe rich compared to many parts of the world but I have to work.

I see there's still no definition here of what poverty is so we all know we're talking about the same thing. I think its pretty safe to say though, that if you have food, water and a place to live, you are not in poverty.

fair enough; how about 'atavistic'?



it's [ then "quote" then ] -- use "/quote" to end a quote. there's also a quote link in the top corner of each reply, so you can highlight what you want to quote and then click that.



you're probably looking with eyes clouded by a notion of what it means to be poor. a lot of poor people still work, but often don't make enough to pay all their bills, eat healthy every day, house themeselves or their family safely and cleanly, etc. you don't see all the poor because only the chronically homeless are highly visible, and they're usually also the ones who are not 'able bodied.' just because you don't see the 12 people crammed in a 2-bedroom apartment doesn't mean it doesn't happen.



do you vote in shareholder's meetings? do you actually own enough stock in any company that your votes matter? if not, then you're not the type of person we're really talking about. we're talking about people who own so much stock that they don't have to work a day job to live quite lavishly; these are also the people who have ultimate say over how a company will be run, because they appoint executive officers who'll make their decisions for them.

well, we've had a few. my point of view about definitions and words in general is that their meaning comes from their use, especially when you're talking about defining a concept for the sake of answering a question.

what is the goal behind defining poverty? to answer or better answer the question, are the poor of our developed and post-industrial societies receiving enough social support? do they deserve such support, and from whom should they get it if they do? what about the poor of other societies?



if you have and are likely to continue having...

Well maybe people could work towards something they could all agree on, like reassessing how farms are subsidized. The reason why so many of the poor are actually obese is because food stamps basically force them to go for the cheapest foods with the most "filling" (carbohydrates) as possible. Very unhealthy.

In the Middle Ages vegetables were considered "peasants' food" that was unfit for consumption by the nobility. Maybe they had something going for them...

But other than that, universal healthcare imo (especially regarding the poor, since they tend to get the jobs involving more physical strain) would drastically increase the standard of living and longevity for everyone and making them more productive as workers. Thus companies would benefit and be more competitive in the US because of this, as well as because the strain on them to provide healthcare to their workers would be lifted.

Despite all the lobbying by PhrMA (the political pharmeceutical lobby), 2/3rds of Americans support universal healthcare even if it meant raising taxes. And we don't even need to raise taxes if the government were allowed to negotiate for lower prescription drug prices under that $500 billion Medicare program passed a few years ago (or perhaps save even more by getting out of Iraq?)

Even Wal-Mart, which I normally loathe and despite has begun pushing for universal healthcare. The only two parties I see losing out are the pharmaceutical companies and the private insurance companies, and frankly, I dont have much sympathy for companies that seem to think that erectile dysfunction is more important than diabetes or cancer, or companies advocating something arguably worse than racism, a la Gattaca:

http://www.genome.gov/10002328

oh I have seen poverty here but from what I see its cause of uncaring adults. Once of my best friends had to sell drugs for his brothers and sisters to eat. Why? His mother was a drug addict and didn t care at the time. He later started a business and takes care of his neices and nephews cause their parents are drug addicts. He has spent almost 100k to help is family. Ya I have seen poverty in America it sucks but its cause by peoples choices.

Unforutnately we have too many moochers to help everyone, and even then some would still fall through cracks.

Yeah 12 peeps cramed into an apartment is illegal and they should be evicted.



I do vote and it does count thank you sir! I m sorry you can t seem to see that.

nope I don t live lavishly but I want to! One of these days I will most likely get there. Ahhh America! Its a land where I don t have to make lots of money to have lots of money!

so the rest of the company's stockholder secretly worry about which CEO candidate you vote for? you're a "big player" in a fortune 500 company? well, good for you. how many votes to you have, out of how many in the compnay?

and good luck with the whole 'make lots of money' thing. only about 1 in 25 million americans actually has the chance to move from a working/middle class SES to a truly upper class position in society.



that's completely untrue. we could help everyone including the 'moochers' (who are fewer and farther between than you seem to believe) and do it without breaking our budget, but big brother wants to squeeze every dollar out of the budget as possible, because that can amount to tax cuts for the rich.

That might work for you to discribe me. But "pagan" might work better and not one of those cute pagans either. I am a decentant head hunters! Nor do I think the practice is wrong.   Even if I wouldn t want to try to make it legal again!


But I wouldn't call myself a throw back no. A throw back prolly would be too violent to survive modern society. I do much better than survive.

That is not what I said... I said it counts... thats it... if you want to say a vote only counts if it can control the whole thing that is ok. Its not how I think. I have a say and if I don t like what they do I can take my money else where.



maybe 1 in 25 million Americans move up from a woking/middle class to a upper class (by whatever definition you want to use). But anyone has a chance to. You make it sound like a lottery. I sir am not playing a lottery.



I disagree.

and oops you didn t say I was a throw back, you said it was a throw back. I sir appologize.

That's basically true in any country... probably even more so in China atm since the economy there is exploding.

yes, it is like a game: it's composed of skill and chance. you're not "playing" a lotto because the probability aspect of it happened before you were born. now you're just doing what you need to do to collect your winnings. you might work hard for what you have, but if you take a 1,000-person cross section of people who're all working equally as hard (especially if you include people outside of industrialized countries), most of them won't have nearly as much to show for their work.

i'm curious. does the suggestion that the poor should get more welfare make you feel like we're accusing that you don't deserve what you have? i'm most definately not making this accusation, but you seem like a candid person and i'm genuinely curious.

discussions on topics like this often take on the texture of a jerry springer show, and i've never really understood that. the only thing i can think is that people take opposing ideas personally on some level.



that's fine, but if i may ask, on what grounds do you disagree? is it you sense of things 'based on people you see,' as you said earlier?

[quote]yes, it is like a game: it's composed of skill and chance. you're not "playing" a lotto because the probability aspect of it happened before you were born. now you're just doing what you need to do to collect your winnings. you might work hard for what you have, but if you take a 1,000-person cross section of people who're all working equally as hard (especially if you include people outside of industrialized countries), most of them won't have nearly as much to show for their work.[quote]

though what I am talking about American oppertunaty here. Is it harder for someone to gain wealth if they come from a bad family? Yes... but ultimately a person here can get out of that state if they make an effort. Here most of the problem is about parents keeping their kids down.... not the state.



I d rather do Micro loans than welfare. This way people would learn more about the system and would be more able to use it better. Should we have safty nets? Yeah I think so, but I also believe when people think that you owe it to them, it hurts their ablity to get out of the situation. I d rather give safty nets to people who took a chance rather then give free health care to a heroin addict.

Would it be perfect? No, but I dont look for perfection.

But to answer your question I don t think you are saying I don t deserve what I have.
But I think that more welfare isn t what we need. I think it should not come from tax dollars, except in emergancies of a large scale.



yeah I like a good arguement and usually will just walk away before it gets to heated.




yeah the moochers are a small minorty but the studies that show that also don t show how much the moochers cost. Drug addicts cost tons of cash and they have a lot of programs. I.V. drug users can qualify for free health coverage that most people cant. If someone wanted to help them out of their pocket more power to 'em. But I d just let them die.



yeah I perfer to use what I experience more than studies when it comes to social issues.

My mother came from one of the bad families, my bio grand father was bi-polar and drank heavily. Did she get out of it... yes not because of chance but because of HER choices.

I myself have mild Cerebal-palsy yet I can work circles around most people. ( I make money in a labor intensive way).

In the USA its your choices that make you poor when you are an adult.

loans? here's a truth about living in poverty: it's predictably unpredictable. micro loans wouldn't help much. sure, some people might gain a better sense of how to manage their money. but the poor don't make enough to have safety cushions. one lost job, one severe illness, and that loan goes sour along with the support.

but i don't think we need more welfare. not a whole lot more, anyway. a big problem with the welfare system is definately funding, but it's not the worst. the red tape to receive aid is staggering, and some of the conditions placed on receiving welfare are draconian, to say the least.



i guess that's where we fundamentally disagree. i couldn't let someone just die, not if i have an ounce of ability to prevent it. i have to at least commend you for your honesty.

FYI - it costs less to treat an addict than it does to prosecute and imprison one. i don't know how much plan C would cost, you know, just leaving them to die and then cleaning up the decaying corpses. it's probably cheaper, and i'm glad i don't actually know.

does this speak to your original thoughts, Marcus?

This is idiotic.

Rights exist for those with the power to claim and enforce those rights. No power, no rights. That is all. You don't have power, you don't know how to get power? TFB.

Fairness? What do the poor do in exchange for the value of the health care and other benefits they believe they are entitled to? Doctors need to eat too, and their drugs and medical equipment don't manufacture themselves. Fairness would require an equal exchange - so if you only earn a pittance, and put a portion of that pittance toward health care, then you can expect pitiful health care.

The rich do not get rich by "exploiting the poor" - they get rich by identifying and exploiting NEEDS and WANTS. The poor just have a harder time meeting their needs and wants than richer folks, but the specific products they cost the same for rich or poor. You want more stuff? Make more money. If you can't do it in this lifetime, raise your kids well so that they can make it in theirs. If you don't make it, and you sacrifice everything and they still don't make it, you fail. TFB.

There is the illusion that civilization has made it possible for us all to live together happily and prosperously. The reality is the same as before civilization: survival is paramount, and every human being is in a life-or-death competition with every other human being for resources. You can survive without being aware of your stepping on others, but if you look hard enough you'll see that your very survival depends on exploitation, or at the least exclusion, of others.

Also, people seem to care so much about the people who are suffering, who are not succeeding. As if it's always the fault of an "oppressor" that they are hurting so badly. How about looking at what the "successful" people do and following that example? Or what about people who are born with nothing and make modest or even great successes of themselves? Wait, that's too hard and takes too much courage, hard work and sacrifice. Hell with that. No, it's easier to say, "screw the rich, they suck". Then why do you want to live like them? Maybe all that good food, health care and nice houses makes them evil. Maybe we should all change our values and LOVE being poor and sick, since it delivers automatic right to the moral high ground.

well, thanks for introducing yourself so warmly.



there are plenty of people out there doing a whole lot more than survival. and energy conservation is just as important an aspect of survival as resource aquisition, so tell me, all those rich folk out there are just working so hard for their survival? where did you say the illusions in society are?



so what do you think those of us preaching progress are trying to do? aquire the power. duh. if you think that's idiotic, then your chains must be pretty nicely padded.

again you've completely missed the point. maybe try actually reading the words others have said. no one's trying to secure the lap of luxury for the poor. and there are plenty of poor people trying to model their behavior directly off the rich, doing everything correctly to succeed and still failing. why do so many conservatives assume that following the steps is all you need to do, and that the poor are all making some kind of error going about their lives? now who's taking the moral high ground for himself?

there are plenty of people out there doing a whole lot more than survival. and energy conservation is just as important an aspect of survival as resource aquisition, so tell me, all those rich folk out there are just working so hard for their survival? where did you say the illusions in society are?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Energy is a resource. You can conserve and compete at the same time, that's fine and an important aspect.

The rich - every penny they make that they don't spend right off - where do you think it goes? Probably to the bank, or a trust fund, for the time it's there to be lent out to others, and in time be inherited by their descendants, so they won't have to be poor and a drain on society. It's a smart, forward-looking move, I think.

The illusion is that we're fundamentally different or better than our pre-civilized ancestors. I say we're the same - products and responders to scarcity. It's real nice to have a lot of $$$ as padding between oneself and starvtion.

OK, figured out quoting. Yeah, sorry for the rude introduction. I was reacting emotionally to the topic.

Hello.

Modeling the behavior of the rich isn't the point. If you try to live like a rich person while being poor, you just get into more debt. What I meant is that people should look to how the rich got rich - model their lives on the people who would become rich in their lifetimes, though I suppose some paths are more replicable than others. I can't speak to that. I don't think that there is a perfect set of steps to follow though, sometimes people have to make their own way - but it helps to have guidelines and example to REACT to. They can't just follow along like sheep and expect not to get slaughtered. Fine, not everyone can be creative, or exceptional. Some people have nothing to offer but their unskilled or low-skilled labor. They can find work though in agriculture, or cleaning, construction, etc. and use the money to put their children through school and other things to give them opportunities. Going from poverty to prosperity is often a generational struggle, not a "step-by-step" instant path to success.

One more thing though, I think that the primary responsibility for ending poverty lies with the poor, but that society as a whole would greatly benefit by assisting people in getting out of poverty. More high-wage-earners means more tax income, and a more fair distribution of the tax burden. One big problem the rich have with the system is that they are supposed to pay a huge amount in taxes, when they don't really need most of the services government provides, other than the military. Why should they have to be saints? But if they and society as a whole helped everyone to succeed, there'd be less to complain about.

The key I think would be to fund people's efforts to improve themselves, with education and training, and "bridge" employment - not just their mere survival, which doesn't benefit society.

7 years