- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- Location
- Ohio
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Right
There will always be "poverty" because someone will always have more than someone else.
Try to eradicate THAT and we will ALL be "the poor".
There will always be "poverty" because someone will always have more than someone else.
Try to eradicate THAT and we will ALL be "the poor".
(poverty is relative, you see. Our "poor" in America today are better off than a prosperous medieval middle-class person, or half the people on the planet now, but still see themselves as poor because they're at the bottom. Also, attempting to eliminate income equality entirely or largely, would destroy incentive, stifle innovation and enterpreneurism and destroy the economy.)
You can define poverty like that, but you can also define it by things like being in danger of getting evicted, or not getting enough to eat, or not being able to afford medical bills. As I was just saying in another thread, I don't care if some people have more as long as everyone has enough.
You can define poverty like that, but you can also define it by things like being in danger of getting evicted, or not getting enough to eat, or not being able to afford medical bills. As I was just saying in another thread, I don't care if some people have more as long as everyone has enough.
what is enough and if we give someone enough and then they engage in behavior that means they need more (like breeding like rabbits) why do we have a duty to increase what was given them?
(poverty is relative, you see. Our "poor" in America today are better off than a prosperous medieval middle-class person, or half the people on the planet now, but still see themselves as poor because they're at the bottom. Also, attempting to eliminate income equality entirely or largely, would destroy incentive, stifle innovation and enterpreneurism and destroy the economy.)
people making lower middle class wages have far more creature comforts than the most powerful duke in 18th century england. those in walk in free clinics have better medicine than John Rockefeller.
years ago I met a Masai prince in Kenya. he had gone to Oxford when an anglican priest who saw his potential helped him go to university. he came home to nairobi to work in the government but being Masai, not being Kikuyu he was unable to advance beyond what would be about a GS-11 in our federal service despite graduating with First Honors from one of the best universities in the known world
so he gave it up when his father died and went back to be a leader of his people-no automobile, no 300 L suits, no briefcases and secretaries. rather a red sari, a spear and many head of cattle. I asked him if "being poorer" was upsetting. He just laughed and noted he was the richest man in the area. he had more cattle, a bigger hut and was respected. wealth he said was relative and while most would say having an air conditioned apartment and a land rover in Nairobi with a color TV set was wealth, he said many others there had more. in his environment he was the richest man
Problem is this ain't the 18th century and it sure ain't Narobi.
Although it is true poverty will always be with us.
To handle poverty one must have tax revenue not only for corporations who need financial help but those that are in poverty.
As far as being considered the richest person in America go to any unemployment office ask any of the unemloyed what is more important being rich or living comfortably?
There are many average working Americans that are living on anywhere from 26 to 38 thousand a year and making it work.
Many are living on poverty wage or minimum wage they make it some move up.
Not counting small business who's profits never come close to that $100, 000 mark they make it profits may dip to 10,000 to 20.000 a year thy make it.
Not only do they make it they help with the poverty problem.
You take away their jobs and kill their small business you just put more people on the poverty list and less people to handle it.eace
What if people have enough, but have misplaced priorities, that make it look like they don't have enough?
Any person living outside their means knows the cosiquences if priorties are not kept.
Example your rent is due, you see a brand new upgrade cellphone you really want.
Where does your money go if it goes to the cellphone and the rent is not paid you deserve to get evicted.
I have no sypathy for these people math is math numbers don't lie.
However if you're paying your rent on time and paying taxes and you get a 30 day notice that your job is going overseas and your wife is working as a waitress to save money you got 30 days to get a job paying the same wages you were getting after that eventualy you won't have enough money to pay the rent.
6.3 million people haven't worked in half a year.
Some say they aren't looking .
That may be true for some , but all 6.3 million???eace
Well too bad you could only vote one for me it was a toss up.
Disallowing people in poverty to have children and disallowing outsourceing to other countries.
I voted disallowing outsourceing to other countries.
Even if you could disallow people in poverty to have children you would have to fight organized religion.
I agree with TurtleDude. maybe there will always be poverty rather than there should be. With free will and over 350million people in the U.S. there will always be those who make VERY bad decisions that will result in poverty. Why should I pay for their mistakes.
Government funded higher education just as other industrialized nations do
# Cut out tax loopholes for the rich to benefit the lower and middle class
# Start disallowing outsourcing to other countries for lower wages
# Institute a flat tax
# Disallow those in poverty to have children
# This is not possible; we will always have poverty and no middle class
# There should always be poverty
This pole was spurred by a thread I read and responded to regarding the birth control and the poor.
This was the OP:
MA, whew! I would think you could have been a little less biased in your poll options. I don't agree with any of the options.
You can define poverty like that, but you can also define it by things like being in danger of getting evicted, or not getting enough to eat, or not being able to afford medical bills. As I was just saying in another thread, I don't care if some people have more as long as everyone has enough.
Defining "enough" is a big part of the problem. A medieval peasant, transported in time to 2011 and put in a government housing project, given welfare and food stamps, would marvel at having a fine home with no straw on the floor, no animal dung mixed in with it; a home that never really got unpleasantly hot or dangerously cold; with a magical stove that could cook a meal in minutes and a magical ice-box to preserve food and have cold drinks and ice in the summertime. Indoor plumbing would be a marvel to him. Electric lighting, TV... amazing. Rich food to eat, more meat than he could imagine, in exchange for little bits of paper someone sends him every month. Free healthcare at the county clinic so that he doesn't have to die of influenza or an abcess tooth in his 30s as so many medieval folks did.
He'd almost think he'd died and gone to Heaven. :lol:
But the modern poor set their standards far higher, mainly because they know there are many people who have more than they do.
That's why "the poor will always be with us." The bottom 10% will always consider themselves "poor"... even when it is because they can't afford the latest-model robot-housekeeper, and have to settle for one that occasionally folds the clothes backwards. :lol:
The thing is, it's no so much about material goods as it is about abstract financial stuff. If someone is in danger of having their house taken away because of debt, then they're poor even if that house has an automatic yacht fabricator or something in it.
Well, if that's the definition of "poor".... then there's a lot of middle-class-to-rich-ish people who are really "poor". I know quite a few people who live in a high-dollar gated subdivision with its own golf course, where the houses start at half a mil and go up from there... who are so heavily in debt and have so little savings that if they lost their high-paying job for 3 months they'd lose everything. I've known some who built a mansion in that subdivision then coiuldn't furnish it for lack of funds. :lol:
Financial mismanagement knows no "class boundaries".
You see, I'm not worried about all of this recent talk of the distressed poor or middle class. once the economy starts rolling again and the middle class aren't victims anymore, the left will once again chastise the middle class for destroying the planet by living in suburbs, driving SUVs, and shopping at Wal-Mart.
Well, if that's the definition of "poor".... then there's a lot of middle-class-to-rich-ish people who are really "poor". I know quite a few people who live in a high-dollar gated subdivision with its own golf course, where the houses start at half a mil and go up from there... who are so heavily in debt and have so little savings that if they lost their high-paying job for 3 months they'd lose everything. I've known some who built a mansion in that subdivision then coiuldn't furnish it for lack of funds. :lol:
Financial mismanagement knows no "class boundaries".
Defining "enough" is a big part of the problem. A medieval peasant, transported in time to 2011 and put in a government housing project, given welfare and food stamps, would marvel at having a fine home with no straw on the floor, no animal dung mixed in with it; a home that never really got unpleasantly hot or dangerously cold; with a magical stove that could cook a meal in minutes and a magical ice-box to preserve food and have cold drinks and ice in the summertime. Indoor plumbing would be a marvel to him. Electric lighting, TV... amazing. Rich food to eat, more meat than he could imagine, in exchange for little bits of paper someone sends him every month. Free healthcare at the county clinic so that he doesn't have to die of influenza or an abcess tooth in his 30s as so many medieval folks did.
He'd almost think he'd died and gone to Heaven. :lol:
But the modern poor set their standards far higher, mainly because they know there are many people who have more than they do.
That's why "the poor will always be with us." The bottom 10% will always consider themselves "poor"... even when it is because they can't afford the latest-model robot-housekeeper, and have to settle for one that occasionally folds the clothes backwards. :lol:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?