Economics and Morals II

[anomaly]

I don't know what you think the homeless look like, but I can't really imagine an advanced society in which they are "all over the place". The fact is, the homeless don't look any different, they don't smell different, and they don't talk different. They're much more "normal" than most people think. Part of the reason you don't see them everywhere, is because many of them are out there looking for jobs. By the way, the reason the homeless are always found in the city is because the city has the most job opportunity. A man is not going to find a job to live on out on the plains or in the farm. Residents of these liberal cities tend to be slightly better educated than rural folks, so of course large cities tend to vote "liberal".

Might as well reply to your next post. Personally, I feel that Clinton was only slightly better than Bush when it came to economics. He and his fellow "neo-liberals" are really fiscally conservative. The great flaw with Bush is his inability to bring us out of this recession. (and it's pretty obvious why he has failed so far, why he's still failing, and why he'll continue to fail: trickle down economics don't work...)

 

[mixedmedia]

well, to be honest i have no statitisics i am not the first in this arguement to say this idea about the poor but, we do not live in a country were u can just find homeless people all over the place unless, of course you are in the city and statisticly cities are generally liberal so explain that

if one is poor in this country it is generally excepted that this means they are onmedicaid / welfare

One need not be homeless to be poor, and as I submitted before, the highest poverty rates in America are in New Mexico, Louisiana (where I am), Mississippi, Alabama & Washington, DC. All red states w/ the exception of DC. But then, I can't remember how NM came out. I think they were red, too.

Yes, it's generally accepted that the poor are on medicaid and/or welfare. What?

 

[Jufarius87]

what? thats what im saying ! they are covered they are "poor" but they still have medical care and they dont go hungry comparitively to other nations they arent doing bad

does anyone have stock market and job creation figures? cuz last i checked we were pulling out of clintons recession just fine and that we jobs have beeen growing since the first 2 yrs of bushs term (also home ownership is at its highest but dems dont like talking about that)

 

[anomaly]

Clinton, just like Bush, used free market, fiscally conservative economics. He and his "new" liberals have performed a 180 on the Democratic party when it comes to economics. So Clinton's recession is not something any conservative should try and blame on liberals, since Clinton's economics were pretty similar to your's. Lets find out why the poor in this country "aren't doing bad". FDR comes to my mind. And as Bush continues to rip apart FDR's New Deal, we may see the poor not doing so well.

 

[Mixed View]

without moral values where would America be. If we only focused on the money we'd go strait to hell.Money isn't everything. Religion is.

 

[anomaly]

without moral values where would America be. If we only focused on the money we'd go strait to hell.Money isn't everything. Religion is.

Perhaps you don't know this, but every single country in the world holds some sort of 'moral values', something is always right and wrong. In most cases, though, countries do not hold particularly Christian morals. And anyway, why should the USA be defined as following Christian morals alone? The thing that this country was founded on was religios tolerance and freedom to worship any God(s) as one wishes. Moving on, I do not feel I am being particularly focused on money itself, I simply care where the money goes. It seems to me that any Christian would support this kind of help for the poor, after all, it was what Jesus himself preached. But the point is that money and economics in general is material, it is not something made up and spiritual as religion is. I guaruntee that in the next 50 years we will not see any significant 'morally strong' movements in the USA (ban on gay marriage, ban on abortion, taking evolution out of schools) or anything like that that the mad conservatives are just dying for. But, we certainly do have a chance to see more equality in this country, and not simply pass off economics as the domain of the rich. 70 years ago people would laugh at the suggestion that business and markets are somehow more democratic than a democratically elected gov't, but now more and more right wing libertarians are thinking this way. Frankly, I don't care for religion, it being speculation about the next life (if one exists) and suggestions about what may be the right way to get to a good afterlife. But economics is in the material realm, do not simply pass off 'caring about money' as unneeded. Religon is not everything. Far from it.

 

[Contrarian]

without moral values where would America be. If we only focused on the money we'd go strait to hell.Money isn't everything. Religion is.

Anomoly, Mixed and Pac... I'm sorry that I'm so late to this spirited discussion. I agree with each of you that the contradiction of the religious right with respect to the poor is beyond hypocracy. It is equally ironic that those who stand to suffer the most at the hands of a Republican administration, voted for them based upon the fear and ignorance that has established itself as the cornerstone of organized religion. Bush was smart enough to realize that the "fire and brimstone" message was the most successful market scam in the history of mankind and decided to use it as a campaign strategy. It obviously worked. Leading the lemmings over the cliff.

Satinlover... the stupidity of your arguement is only outweighed by the hypocracy of the concept. Money isn't everything? Have you told that to the numerous multi-millionaire Tele-Evangelists who bilk the pocketbooks of the old and ignorant seeking salvation? Big houses. Fancy cars. Amusement parks. Insurance companies for Jesus... and on and on. When was it permitted to turn religion into a business? Salvation for a profit? It has always been the greatest market motivator - pleasure vs pain... paradise vs eternal damnation if you BUY my brand of salvation! When Jesus was preaching on the Mount, when did he talk about marketshare and profits? When was "Thou Shalt Not Steal" taken off the table? Certainly not when these "Holy" Preachers are pumpin' the marketing machine to the masses. The largest organized crime syndicate in the world has a gentle Polish preacher at the helm who happens to live in palatial splendor with a trillion dollars in assets! How else do you think they can pay off all the plantiffs in the mass pedophile scandals? Pull your head out of your rear end and realize that RELIGION IS MONEY!

“Many have made a trade of delusions and false miracles, deceiving the stupid multitude.” –Leonardo da Vinci – from the personal notebook on polemics and speculation.

“Blinding ignorance does mislead us. O! Wretched mortals, open your eyes!”
–Leonardo da Vinci – from the personal notebook on polemics and speculation.

 

[anomaly]

Contrarian, this forum is good, but it doesn't contain much statistics. Look in the 'New Economy in America' forum to see some statistics I compiled from a book I'm reading. They really are very interesting, if not a little surprising even.

 

[mixedmedia]

Gee, thanks, you compassionate conservatism warms the very ****les of my heart. Poor is what it is and it is what it was. Perceptions are variable, as well.

Just had to point out that the new censoring system took the C O C K out of my ****les......silly

 

[Pacridge]

Just had to point out that the new censoring system took the C O C K out of my ****les......silly

Yeah, I got edited for co*kpit talking about flying in another thread. Good thing I didn't say mother fu*king co*kpit.

 

[mixedmedia]

Yeah, I got edited for co*kpit talking about flying in another thread. Good thing I didn't say mother fu*king co*kpit.

heeheeheeheehee....dat's funny

I demand my right to cuss like Clint Eastwood and Charles Bronson....I don't do it alot, just when needed for appropriate affectation...it just ain't fittin'.....it's, ehem, downright un-American