the distribution of wealth

[avignon]

With the tragedy in New Orleans affecting so many people who were living below the poverty level and pushing so many who had been struggling to retain some shred of financial stability far below it, I can't help but consider the distribution of wealth in the US (as in nearly every country in the world throughout history) to be a huge cause of these types of consequences.
I just don't understand how, in this day and age of incredible wealth, power, knowledge, and technology, the poor are allowed to live in such squalid conditions-not just in the aftermath of the hurricane, but prior to it, and not just in New Orleans, but in all communities. How is it acceptible by the masses for a very few people to have such gross amounts of wealth that they could easily live luxurious lives hundreds of times over, and yet so many remain utterly destitute? And then there is also the ones in the middle who work their entire lives for the richest corporations in the world, just to break even and have enough life insurance to cover the cost of their own burials. I don't understand why the interests of the vast majority of the people on the planet are unimportant to the powers that be? And why do the those people, so great in number, comply to policies that do not meet their own best interests?
Poverty is a factor at the root of every problem that faces society from drug abuse to violence to illiteracy to STDs and on and on. If a person's basic needs are not being met, or all of their energy is needed just to meet those basic needs for themselves and their families, their potential to contribute to their own self-improvement is nonexistent, and therefore so is their potential to contribute to society.
Why doesn't this country have enough jobs to employ every able person? Why aren't the multi-billion dollar corporations paying their employees enough to rise their families above the poverty level? These employees are the people who buy the products that these corporations sell. That is how the corporations make profits. So doesn't it stand to reason that the more people earn, the more they will buy, and the bigger the profits for the corporations? Wouldn't that be good for everyone involved?
I just don't understand. How rich is just god damn rich enough?

[enree erzweglle]

I (re)watched The Big One last week and Michael Moore raised that point repeatedly with company CEOs who were downsizing their plants or outsourcing the labor completely. He said things like, "How much is rich enough and couldn't you make yourselves just a little bit less rich but let these people keep their jobs?" The only person who really listened to him was the Nike CEO and I wonder if that guy did that to avoid coming across as another Roger Smith.

[Qdrop]

forced re-distribution of wealth (socialism, communism) would be philisophically, morally, and economically wrong.

it would be thievery, under the disguise of ethical egalitarianism.


socialism (as eco/political system) and communism are fundamentally flawed systems that cannot support states or nations....

capitalism is the best system that adhere's to our natural way of living (though many socialists will claim otherwise, and that natural competition is a dogmatic belief)....though capitalism, at it's base, is about the acqusition of wealth, not the spreading of it.

there will always be a discrepancy in wealth and status among humans...that is how nature and natural law works...and capitalism mirrors that well.

to aspire to a goal of "NO POOR", etc....is not only a sentimental pipedream, but an ultimately futile and ECONOMICALLY DISASTEROUS path to attempt.

the real question is what is an "acceptable" amount of unemployment and poverty...
bleeding heart idealists will say "none".

but the rest of us can debate that.

the goal should not be to GIVE everyone equal wealth, but GIVE THEM THE EQUAL OPPURTUNITY to achieve it.
not everyone will be as successful and productive as the next...but all should be given the chance to try.

[avignon]

forced re-distribution of wealth (socialism, communism) would be philisophically, morally, and economically wrong.

it would be thievery, under the disguise of ethical egalitarianism.
why? how can you say that is wrong to limit how much money the already rich and powerful make when there are already limits on how little the poor can make? We have a floor, why can't we have a ceiling? And why is the floor so low? It would benefit the rich if the poor made more money, since they have to give it back to them anyway to buy essential products to survive. And you used the word "theivery". How can redistributing the wealth be theivery if keeping the working poor at such low wages that they can never get ahead is not called slavery?


socialism (as eco/political system) and communism are fundamentally flawed systems that cannot support states or nations....

capitalism is the best system that adhere's to our natural way of living (though many socialists will claim otherwise, and that natural competition is a dogmatic belief)....though capitalism, at it's base, is about the aqusition of wealth, not the spreading of it.
but there is supposed to be a difference between an econmic system and a governmental /political system. People in the US have been forced fed that to be anti-capitalist is anti-democratic or anti-patriotic. Which is absurd. A true communist state has never been in existence anywhere on earth so how can one make judgements saying that it can't work or it's simply flawed?

there will always be a discrepancy in wealth and status among humans...that is how nature and natural law works...and capitalism mirrors that well.

to aspire to a goal of "NO POOR", etc....is not only a sentimental pipedream, but a ultimately futile and ECONOMICALLY DISASTEROUS path to attempt.

the real question is what is an "acceptable" amount of unemployment and poverty...
bleeding heart idealists will say "none".

but the rest of us can debate that. You are willing to say "what is the acceptable amount of unemployment and poverty", while I am asking "what is the acceptable amount of wealth and greed?" Society has been fed images for so long that it is desirable to be wealthy and have gross amounts of luxury possessions and absurd amounts of material things. Why has it never been fed to the public through the media that it is ludicrous and shameful and wasteful to have too much when so many have so little? You say that the idea of "no poor" is a sentimental pipedream, but when poor people are constantly fed images of lifestyles and luxury items that they will NEVER be able to obtain, that is a pipedream as well. Why is one acceptible and the other just sentimental?

the goal should not be to GIVE everyone equal wealth, but GIVE THEM THE EQUAL OPPURTUNITY to achieve it.
not everyone will be as successful and productive as the next...but all should be given the chance to try.
And how do you propse that that is accomplished? Surely, you cannot believe that it is the case in this country today? That even the children born to the poorest of the poor and raised in impoverished conditions have the exact same opportunities as a politician's child would have? I know you aren't that naive to not realize that poverty puts people into a viscious cycle that is a tremendous struggle to break free of and lasts for generations indefinitly? So how do you recommend that people who's basic needs are barely met obtain equal opportunities to acquire wealth?

[avignon]

I (re)watched The Big One last week and Michael Moore raised that point repeatedly with company CEOs who were downsizing their plants or outsourcing the labor completely. He said things like, "How much is rich enough and couldn't you make yourselves just a little bit less rich but let these people keep their jobs?" The only person who really listened to him was the Nike CEO and I wonder if that guy did that to avoid coming across as another Roger Smith.
I don't think that Nike can afford to look insensitive at this point, can they?

[monkey]

the goal should not be to GIVE everyone equal wealth, but GIVE THEM THE EQUAL OPPURTUNITY to achieve it.
not everyone will be as successful and productive as the next...but all should be given the chance to try.

he's got it right there.
it's just impossible for a socialist society to work perfectly. there are flaws in every economic plan. but capitalism works becuase it pushes everyone to try. and trying is inately human.

the poor distribution of wealth is plight of our society. the richer get richer, the poor stay poor, and the gap gets bigger. there's almost nothing to be done about it unless there's a massive change to the way business is done in this country. getting rid of unemployment is actually a bad idea. it creates an inflationary situation because if everyone has jobs, youhave to pay people more to stay. if you pay more, you have to raise the price of your goods to even out. if you raise the price of your goods, cost of living for your workers go up, and you have to pay them more. and so on.

:(

this is sad.

[avignon]

he's got it right there.
it's just impossible for a socialist society to work perfectly. there are flaws in every economic plan. but capitalism works becuase it pushes everyone to try. and trying is inately human.

the poor distribution of wealth is plight of our society. the richer get richer, the poor stay poor, and the gap gets bigger. there's almost nothing to be done about it unless there's a massive change to the way business is done in this country. getting rid of unemployment is actually a bad idea. it creates an inflationary situation because if everyone has jobs, youhave to pay people more to stay. if you pay more, you have to raise the price of your goods to even out. if you raise the price of your goods, cost of living for your workers go up, and you have to pay them more. and so on.

:(

this is sad.
You think capitalism works? I know a lot of people that don't agree. I guess that belief is strongly influenced by one's financial state.
Why is inflation bad? It is the opposite of recession. It is the upside of the two and a slight flux between the two conditions is desirable to keep from having a depression. I don't see how raising the cost of living by paying people more and consequently charging more for goods is such a bad scenario. And what type of profit margin are we talking about? If corporations shorten the profit margin of goods to pay people more, then they could potentially make larger profits through quantity instead of a high profit per good sold.

[monkey]

in most economic models, the idea of uninhibited inflation absolutely ruins the economy.

and basically, you said it. the idea of our economy right now is to keep things in an influx of recession and inflation. but the model of 0% unemployment only keeps it as inflation and then explosion.
there's no recession when everyone is getting paid.

it also might only work for big companies. small companies, small businesses cant afford that model.

this is actually very complicated. im personally not a big fan. i wish socialism would work. but it's been proven, time and again, that it doesnt. it's not human nature for everyone to be equal.

[Qdrop]

why? how can you say that is wrong to limit how much money the already rich and powerful make when there are already limits on how little the poor can make? We have a floor, why can't we have a ceiling? And why is the floor so low? oh, on the contray, dear...i completely agree that there should be a "cap" on corporate earnings, at least. i think that could help competition.
i am against conglomerates...

It would benefit the rich if the poor made more money, since they have to give it back to them anyway to buy essential products to survive. And you used the word "theivery". How can redistributing the wealth be theivery if keeping the working poor at such low wages that they can never get ahead is not called slavery? this is what i'm talking about....
don't give the poor more money....give them better oppurtunity to make more money.



but there is supposed to be a difference between an econmic system and a governmental /political system. People in the US have been forced fed that to be anti-capitalist is anti-democratic or anti-patriotic. Which is absurd. A true communist state has never been in existence anywhere on earth so how can one make judgements saying that it can't work or it's simply flawed? it's never been in existance because it can't achieve a practical working existance. we just aren't built that way.

you say "how can i judge a system to be flawed if it's never been put into practice yet?"...

well, how can you judge to be the opposite....it it's never been put into practice?

You are willing to say "what is the acceptable amount of unemployment and poverty", while I am asking "what is the acceptable amount of wealth and greed?" i agree.

Society has been fed images for so long that it is desirable to be wealthy and have gross amounts of luxury possessions and absurd amounts of material things. Why has it never been fed to the public through the media that it is ludicrous and shameful and wasteful to have too much when so many have so little? oh...i think it is....there are plently like us who think that platinum plated rims for your jag are just ridiculous.

You say that the idea of "no poor" is a sentimental pipedream, but when poor people are constantly fed images of lifestyles and luxury items that they will NEVER be able to obtain, that is a pipedream as well. Why is one acceptible and the other just sentimental? both are wrong.


And how do you propse that that is accomplished? hell, that would take pages and pages....and i'm not qualified to really to even make anything other than general proposals.

Surely, you cannot believe that it is the case in this country today? That even the children born to the poorest of the poor and raised in impoverished conditions have the exact same opportunities as a politician's child would have? no, of course not.

I know you aren't that naive to not realize that poverty puts people into a viscious cycle that is a tremendous struggle to break free of and lasts for generations indefinitly? yes, the poverty trap....as well as the welfare trap.

So how do you recommend that people who's basic needs are barely met obtain equal opportunities to acquire wealth? not through a "robin hood" scenario.
2 wrongs don't make a right.

i think the magic word is "education".

but truthfully....there is no magic bullet.
it will take a myriad of social changes and economic oppurtunities to truly give more people more oppurtunities.

[avignon]

in most economic models, the idea of uninhibited inflation absolutely ruins the economy.

and basically, you said it. the idea of our economy right now is to keep things in an influx of recession and inflation. but the model of 0% unemployment only keeps it as inflation and then explosion.
there's no recession when everyone is getting paid.

it also might only work for big companies. small companies, small businesses cant afford that model.

this is actually very complicated. im personally not a big fan. i wish socialism would work. but it's been proven, time and again, that it doesnt. it's not human nature for everyone to be equal.
But I can accept that some unemplyment will always exist. It would be impossible to prevent. You will always have people who simply can't or won't stay at one job. And there are many reaasons that there will be someunemployment. The science of the economy is new, but doesn't it just remain cyclicle as long as it's not tampered with much? But the things that have happened in the past decade have tampered with the cycle of hte economy and we now have a high unemployment rate. So things should be done to offset that and get us back on a tepid flux of recession and inflation.
But, I don't think that things have to change completely in order to provide better conditions for the poor. I seriously think that some practicle policies can be put into effect that will even out the distribution of wealth without completely restructuring the economic system. The minimum wage should be increased. The change in ploicy that just occured making it not mandatory for companies to pay their employees time and a half for overtime hours worked was just another instance of the government looking out for the interests of the rich instead of the working poor. The entire welfare and social security programs need to be reformed because neither provide adequately for people who are forced to rely on them. Health care in the US is a joke. And I don't understand why there is no regulation on the profit margin of goods produced. Why is it ok to charge 200% or more of what it cost to produce for items? Why are some corporations broken up because there are seen as monopolies by the government, but others are not that operate under the same procedures? I have no choice what electric company I purchase from. Why isn't that seen as a monopoly? And why was the FCC regualtions taken off of phone services? Why is college tuition so ridiculously high? Why isn't child care more adequately provided to working parents who can not afford to pay huge percents of their incomes for it? Why are the majority of American manufacturing jobs located outside of this country?
Pauli, I don't mean to sound like I'm drilling you. :) I'm just throwing these questions out to anyone who might have an answer or an opinion.

[avignon]

yes, the poverty trap....as well as the welfare trap.
they are one and the same

not through a "robin hood" scenario.
2 wrongs don't make a right.

i think the magic word is "education".

but truthfully....there is no magic bullet.
it will take a myriad of social changes and economic oppurtunities to truly give more people more oppurtunities.
I don't believe that anything I proposed is a "robin hood" scenario. I think that the profit margin made off of so many goods is robbery. I am saying that things like that should be regulated.
Education. Higher education in the US is still a luxury item that most people born poor will never afford. The average tuition costs for state universities in the US as opposed to the costs in other countries is unbelievable. And it is predicted to increase dramatically in the next ten years. Why?
The public elementary and high school eduactions offered to poorer areas does not prepare these students for college. Why? There are exceptions and that is because these kids are truly exceptional. But the average child born in poverty raised on welfare will not be college educated and will reamin in poverty and on welfare.

[avignon]

Also, jobs are continuing to be more and more scarce, the competition for these jobs becomes higher. Someday even people with BAs will be hard pressed to make ends meet from their pay checks.

[Qdrop]

they are one and the same
agreed.



I don't believe that anything I proposed is a "robin hood" scenario. I think that the profit margin made off of so many goods is robbery. I am saying that things like that should be regulated.
price rigging/fixing is regulated...perhaps not as much as it should be.


Education. Higher education in the US is still a luxury item that most people born poor will never afford. The average tuition costs for state universities in the US as opposed to the costs in other countries is unbelievable. And it is predicted to increase dramatically in the next ten years. Why?
great point.
it's because it's privatized. and it's a free market.
universities can charge whatever they want.


The public elementary and high school eduactions offered to poorer areas does not prepare these students for college. Why? lack of funding. my girlfriend teaches elementary. i should get her on here.

[Qdrop]

Someday even people with BAs will be hard pressed to make ends meet from their pay checks.

that day has already arrived.

[abcdefz]

I can't stand poverty, but anyone who romanticizes the poor has probably never lived or worked with them.

[zippo]

Society has been fed images for so long that it is desirable to be wealthy and have gross amounts of luxury possessions and absurd amounts of material things. Why has it never been fed to the public through the media that it is ludicrous and shameful and wasteful to have too much when so many have so little?

first of all, you shoudlnt generalize all of media into that idea. society also chooses which media to consume from the batch. before asking yourself why the media portray such an image, ask yourself why do that type of media sell more than others? if they keep dishing it out its because they keep pulling from the other side

btw, i think your anger is a good start for whatever it is youll be doing in the near future for this situation. ive always been a fan of the "grain of salt" (y)

[zippo]

I can't stand poverty, but anyone who romanticizes the poor has probably never lived or worked with them.

do you mind elaborating?

[Fern]

THE GRAPES OF WRATH

[enree erzweglle]

that day has already arrived.
I was posting something like this earlier today, but I killed my browser window by accident and didn't feel like recovering it.

We've had lots of PhDs applying for jobs where a masters was the requirement.

We've had lots of people with masters applying for jobs where a BA was required.

We've had lots of BAs applying for pseudo-support staff types of jobs.

And those people with advanced degrees are applying for positions that are completely unrelated to their education.

Even college students are having difficulty finding summer jobs because those jobs are being taken by people who would normally be settled in other jobs or they're being taken by people who are supplementing their regular jobs with summertime work.

So yes, that day is here or at least it's here HERE.

[avignon]

I can't stand poverty, but anyone who romanticizes the poor has probably never lived or worked with them.
Are you suggesting that I've never been around poor people? That seriously makes me laugh. I'm from an Indian reservation. You don't get much more "poor" than that. And I admit that as a culture, we believe that having more wealth than the rest of your tribe is shameful. We believe that greed in life will cause your spirit to remain restless long after you are dead, trying to retain your material possessions after you are no longer flesh. So my upbringing has been a huge influence in how I perceive society.
Also, I'm a third generation factory worker. I'm a steward for my labor union. So I have heaps of experience living and working around the working poor.
But I don't understand how wanting to change the living conditions of a group of people is "romanticizing" them? Are you somehow saying that they are poor because of character flaws, and/or that they deserve their lot in life? Or am I reading too much into your comment?

[avignon]

first of all, you shoudlnt generalize all of media into that idea. society also chooses which media to consume from the batch. before asking yourself why the media portray such an image, ask yourself why do that type of media sell more than others? if they keep dishing it out its because they keep pulling from the other side
all right. I made a generalization about the media. But why does that type of media sell more than others? That's a good question. Do you have any suggestions about that?


btw, i think your anger is a good start for whatever it is youll be doing in the near future for this situation. ive always been a fan of the "grain of salt" (y)
I do what I can and constantly feel frustrated when I can't do more. But I don't understand your comment entirely. What are you suggesting? And why do you think I come across as angry about this when I am just asking why the current situations are the way they are and suggesting changes that I feel would improve everyone's circumstances in the long run?

[enree erzweglle]

I can't stand poverty, but anyone who romanticizes the poor has probably never lived or worked with them.

do you mind elaborating?

Are you suggesting that I've never been around poor people?
For a few posts today, it crossed my mind that a-z might have left himself logged in at an internet cafe, but then I read his post in another thread and he used the word approbation and I knew that it was him.

:D

[zippo]

all right. I made a generalization about the media. But why does that type of media sell more than others? That's a good question. Do you have any suggestions about that?

well, they sell more because people are stupid. thats my point. society has to be more conscious and analytical is my suggestion and this is taught since childhood. but how do you change people now? *cries*


I do what I can and constantly feel frustrated when I can't do more. But I don't understand your comment entirely. What are you suggesting? And why do you think I come across as angry about this when I am just asking why the current situations are the way they are and suggesting changes that I feel would improve everyone's circumstances in the long run?

i was suggesting that your general concern is wonderful, i was praising it, and that its an excellent start for something that you could do in the future, or else, the concern stays only as such. but the important thing here is your anger exists....and you understood me wrong, i meant angry as in good not bad, restless (y)






side comment:now a-z comes on and hes like "uh, i was generally speaking", i hate that shit! (btw im not ripping on either of you,just the funny situation)

[GreenEarthAl]

A great many people like to place limits on what society can be, because that allows them to relax. We no longer have to work toward acheiving society's potential, we can kick back and proclaim we're already there. Fostering this belief --that things are basically fine (maybe could be a little better, but hey, this is America so at least I know I'm free Yadda-Blah)-- allows the wealth concentrationists to continue on unabated.

Many humans find the idea that certain segments of the population (and if they're huge segments of the population so be it) have to be poor. That it just has to be that way. There is just some genetic fundamental flaw that will guide them back to poverty no matter what you teach them or how you try to help them. So why bother? May as well just watch the Surreal life or whatever's popular and keep on keepin on.

Such people tend to see society as static, and they blueprint humanity's potential based on animal kingdom references and place a limit on the future constrained by the past. I imagine that some day in the distant, distant past some really swarthy cave fellow placed his hand on his sons shoulder and said "Son, you ought to get out there and pick yourself a woman and just have sex with her. They stop objecting after a while. All of the animals do it. It's just human nature. Women will always be here for our gratification. Don't let this new language thing that we've been doing fool you into believing they have the right to object. How about that one. She's kinda cute. Get down there and bash her over the head with a big stick and do your thing boy."

The plain and simple fact is that we can do so much better than we're doing. Models exist all over the place where people are creating community and breaking down societal barriers. People are opting out of greed based systems and sharing what they have freely and teaching what they know feely and it's a good feeling and it's continuing to spread. I see it every day and try to push it along as best I can.

Thanks for starting this post. Thanks for feeling those feelings and thanks for all of your kick ass responses to back up those feelings.

RAWK!

[kll]

How is it acceptible by the masses for a very few people to have such gross amounts of wealth that they could easily live luxurious lives hundreds of times over, and yet so many remain utterly destitute? And then there is also the ones in the middle who work their entire lives for the richest corporations in the world, just to break even and have enough life insurance to cover the cost of their own burials. I don't understand why the interests of the vast majority of the people on the planet are unimportant to the powers that be? And why do the those people, so great in number, comply to policies that do not meet their own best interests? Why is anyone given a "right" to anything though? You are born into this world as a human being with no rights other than life. If you are lucky, you are born on soil that is a product of western civilation and not into some village in Africa. Why do the rich have to share? I don't understand this type of thinking. The rich are who provide the charities that develop cures to diseases, provide libraries, museums and a billion other means that we use every day. Why should they have to take care of the poor also?

Why doesn't this country have enough jobs to employ every able person? 4.9% unemployment rate is pretty damn good. I would imagine that the % rate of people on welfare is higher than that.

[zorra_chiflada]

a capitalist society means that only the very few get to be wealthy, while everyone else has to be working class or in poverty.
people who support it say that "it's human nature." this theory can't really be backed up, as you can just as easily say that in a capitalist society, we are taught not to question capitalism. we are taught that this is the way we are supposed to be.
humans have undergone paradigm shifts before, and we are still capable.
as GEA said, people in strong support of capitalism say that "some people are meant to be poor" or that they "deserve being poor because they're lazy"
capitalism doesn't push everyone to try, it pushes the rich to exploit the poor for profits. it's a society that benefits the wealthy minority, and the poor/working class majority are dragged along behind them.

[Beth]

Poverty is a factor at the root of every problem that faces society from drug abuse to violence to illiteracy to STDs and on and on.
wow. it's poor people that are the problem then? so, everyone having money will make society's ills disappear?

[Beth]

I have no choice what electric company I purchase from. Why isn't that seen as a monopoly?
it is a monopoly -- it's a natural monopoly

monopolies and natural monopolies (from my administrative law notes):

If we do have monopolies (we allow some monopolies, called natural monopolies to exist), we set their rates to determine what can be charged for the product (cable, phone, power, etc.). Suppose the only natural gas available is in Oklahoma and Professor Jacob and his friends buy all the land and have control of all the natural gas, and charge outrageous rates for people to obtain the gas. This is why agencies want to prevent monopolies. One way to prevent monopolies is to separate or break up the large company into smaller companies. Natural monopolies are much more efficient as monopolies, and that is why we allow those monopolies to exist. Power is an example. We could allow anyone to come in and set up a power company, but we’ll have more power lines. The Florida Public Service Commission sets the rates for the power company. The Public Service Commission is supposed to protect consumers.

[SobaViolence]

people believe in capitalism the way they believe in God.

They were conditioned and raised to do so.

those who think that capitalism is the best and/or only way are creatively dead, insipid and hopeless slaves.

just because it hasn't worked doesn't mean it can't. because capitalism won't work, and is going through the motions of killing us all, one dime at a time.

if the perfect nationstate has only 2 federal parties who are almost indistinguishable, i'd rather we get honest with ourselves and revert to monarchies and feudalism.

because we are living under a false illusion of freedom and liberty.

[Pres Zount]

Mouthpieces of capitalism would have been the mouthpieces of feudalism a few hundred years ago.

[tracky]

I just think there needs to be some limits on income and then more of that being distributed amongst the lesser paid people. I think there are people who do work better/faster/smarter, and they do deserve to get paid more. It's the people who walk away from crumbling companies with multi-million dollar pay-outs that is just wrong and how the fuck they get away with that shit is beyond me.

[avignon]

great point.
it's because it's privatized. and it's a free market.
universities can charge whatever they want.
but why are state universities privatized?
lack of funding. my girlfriend teaches elementary. i should get her on here.
if these schools are public then why is there a difference in the amount of funding from to the next?

[avignon]

The plain and simple fact is that we can do so much better than we're doing. Models exist all over the place where people are creating community and breaking down societal barriers. People are opting out of greed based systems and sharing what they have freely and teaching what they know feely and it's a good feeling and it's continuing to spread. I see it every day and try to push it along as best I can.
What models? How are the communities working? Can you elaborate?

Thanks for starting this post. Thanks for feeling those feelings and thanks for all of your kick ass responses to back up those feelings.

RAWK! :) I'm very pleased to see the response and the differing opinions because they are well thought out opinions. I like the people here and I like to see what they think about things like this. Even if I disagree with them on some issues, there are still many things that I enjoy about them,. What a boring place this would be if everyone agreed about everything all the time.

[avignon]

it is a monopoly -- it's a natural monopoly

monopolies and natural monopolies (from my administrative law notes):

If we do have monopolies (we allow some monopolies, called natural monopolies to exist), we set their rates to determine what can be charged for the product (cable, phone, power, etc.). Suppose the only natural gas available is in Oklahoma and Professor Jacob and his friends buy all the land and have control of all the natural gas, and charge outrageous rates for people to obtain the gas. This is why agencies want to prevent monopolies. One way to prevent monopolies is to separate or break up the large company into smaller companies. Natural monopolies are much more efficient as monopolies, and that is why we allow those monopolies to exist. Power is an example. We could allow anyone to come in and set up a power company, but we’ll have more power lines. The Florida Public Service Commission sets the rates for the power company. The Public Service Commission is supposed to protect consumers.
Thank you for answering this. I asked a lot of questions because I simply didn't have the answer to them. Although I believe that in some countries the natural monopoies have been broken up.
Do you happen to have an answer as to why the FCC no longer regulates phone services? Is it because with wireless and digital service, the phone utility no longer falls under the natural monpoly category?

[avignon]

wow. it's poor people that are the problem then? so, everyone having money will make society's ills disappear?
I think you are making a leap here. There is a difference between poor people and poverty. And I believe that societal problems like the ones I used as an example exist more predominately in poorer communities. The point is, does poverty contribute to the occurance of these problems? When a poor person develops these types of problems, how much of a factor did poverty play? I think it is a factor and does contribute to the frequency of these other problems.

[avignon]

Everyone had some terrific points.

I would like to restate that I think there are ways to improve on the economic structure that is in existence in the US that would benefit everyone. I recognize that a wealthy class is necessary. I don't think it's feasible to do away with large coporations or conglomerates. I do think that there could be ways to regulate their business dealings in order to benefit everyone. For example, once a company reaches a certain value, like in the billions, profit sharing among the lower paid employees should be mandatory. Their health care should be provided for. A higher education fund for their children should be started, like a 401(k), where the company matches what the employee contributes to the fund. The pension plan should be improved and mandatory.

As far as the welfare system, I think it was kll who brought up the fact that more people are on welfare than are on unemployment. Well, don't you think that underemployment is the main factor in that? What is the use in having a job that doesn't pay enough to provide for your family? Not everyone on welfare is lazy. Although I do recognize that the welfare system is constantly being abused by people. I think that those people should be punished. I think the system should be restructured. If the ones who don't need it stop receiving it, then there would be more for the ones who truly do. But as to how to acheive that, I have no idea. I don't know how to keep people from having more children when they already can't provide for the ones they have, without violating their rights.

[avignon]

a capitalist society means that only the very few get to be wealthy, while everyone else has to be working class or in poverty.
people who support it say that "it's human nature." this theory can't really be backed up, as you can just as easily say that in a capitalist society, we are taught not to question capitalism. we are taught that this is the way we are supposed to be.
humans have undergone paradigm shifts before, and we are still capable.
as GEA said, people in strong support of capitalism say that "some people are meant to be poor" or that they "deserve being poor because they're lazy"
capitalism doesn't push everyone to try, it pushes the rich to exploit the poor for profits. it's a society that benefits the wealthy minority, and the poor/working class majority are dragged along behind them.
This is pretty much my exact thoughts. But I think a shift would have to happen very gradually in order to keep a country from collapsing. In the meantime, I just want to know if the gap between the very poor and the very wealthy has to be so enormous? I don't think it does.


I have another question. In the US why are politicians who are currently in office allowed to invest controlling or at least a place on the board amounts of money into private businesses? Isn't that a conflict of interest that influences the work that they do in office?

[avignon]

I was posting something like this earlier today, but I killed my browser window by accident and didn't feel like recovering it.

We've had lots of PhDs applying for jobs where a masters was the requirement.

We've had lots of people with masters applying for jobs where a BA was required.

We've had lots of BAs applying for pseudo-support staff types of jobs.

And those people with advanced degrees are applying for positions that are completely unrelated to their education.

Even college students are having difficulty finding summer jobs because those jobs are being taken by people who would normally be settled in other jobs or they're being taken by people who are supplementing their regular jobs with summertime work.

So yes, that day is here or at least it's here HERE.
yes it has arrived. And it is affecting everyone across the board. People with some college are getting manufacturing jobs and pushing people with no college into retail jobs. It's a downward spiral that won't be curbed until there are more jobs across the board and more opportunities for higher education.
My manufacturing job pays better and offers better benefits than most entry level white collar jobs. I work with a few teachers that took the factory job because they couldn't make it on their teacher's salary.

[enree erzweglle]

My manufacturing job pays better and offers better benefits than most entry level white collar jobs. I work with a few teachers that took the factory job because they couldn't make it on their teacher's salary.And those jobs usually are protected (at least for now) such that if you work overtime, you'll be paid for it and maybe even paid extra for it.

In most white-collar positions that I know of, working overtime (without pay) is simply expected. My friends in industry tend to put in 10-12 hour days in their offices and then they put in another 4-6 hours at home. They might be rewarded with a promotion or they might get a bonus or a higher annual raise. But if you're like me and don't particularly want promotions and if you work for a company that doesn't do bonuses, then working OT has no real benefit other than earning a reputation for being dedicated and possibly (maybe) learning something new along the way (like maybe not to work so much OT).

[Qdrop]

a capitalist society means that only the very few get to be wealthy, while everyone else has to be working class or in poverty. mostly working class. yes. why is that so bad?


people who support it say that "it's human nature." this theory can't really be backed up, bullshit. you just refuse to research that side of it.

as you can just as easily say that in a capitalist society, we are taught not to question capitalism. we are taught that this is the way we are supposed to be. so it's a simple case of "shut up or i'll hit you!"?

bullshit. capitalism is questioned throughout the world by those living within it's system. there is no price to pay for speaking out against capitalism...we can say what we want when we want.
you want to blame capitalisms success and communism/socialism's failures on brainwashing? how conveniant...

it's very simple....list the communist/socialist nations that have succeeded at length?
list them..

GEA and I had this discussion before...and he was at best, able to list a few tribal communities and factions throughout history and the world.....nothing comprable to a nation.

the old warhorse is that "well, that just cause capitalist countries squash them because they are threatened by them."
well, yes...they are competition...(USSR) so yes, we have frequently been in strife with them over the decades.
but who always wins?
why?
because one side has more money and can outlast the other...
which side is that and why?

so, under those pretenses....who is "better"?

humans have undergone paradigm shifts before, and we are still capable. any social shifts we have made as a culture have always been within the boundries human nature...always.
education can help temper basic instincts that can confound societal values, sure...that's the value of human intellect...
but to say we can just collectively decide to change our nature because this new way is deemed "better" by some and walk off in to the magical sunset on a unicorn is just ridiculous....

as GEA said, people in strong support of capitalism say that "some people are meant to be poor" or that they "deserve being poor because they're lazy" actually....nature says that. we didn't make the rules....

capitalism doesn't push everyone to try, it pushes the rich to exploit the poor for profits. it's a society that benefits the wealthy minority, and the poor/working class majority are dragged along behind them. that's just cynical opinion and hyperbole...which, of course, you are entitled to speak....but that's far from intellectual debate.

[Qdrop]

people believe in capitalism the way they believe in God.

They were conditioned and raised to do so.

those who think that capitalism is the best and/or only way are creatively dead, insipid and hopeless slaves.

just because it hasn't worked doesn't mean it can't. because capitalism won't work, and is going through the motions of killing us all, one dime at a time.



Mouthpieces of capitalism would have been the mouthpieces of feudalism a few hundred years ago.


socialism/communism supporters excell at sanctimonious hyperbole...

but always leave much to be desired in the realm of economic, structural debate.

why is that?
why do their stances always center around emotional foot stomping...and rarely around economic data and substantiated historical data?

[Kid Presentable]

eh, been said better.

[SobaViolence]

socialism/communism supporters excell at sanctimonious hyperbole...

but always leave much to be desired in the realm of economic, structural debate.

why is that?
why do their stances always center around emotional foot stomping...and rarely around economic data and substantiated historical data?

because the capitalist failures are real, go to the poor part of town, go see books in most schools (and go see the condition of the schools themselves), try finding a breath of fresh air.

the horrors of capitalism are all around us and yet you continue to support the status quo and refuse to fight for change. you're a flake.

Once the last tree is cut and the last river poisoned, you will find you can not eat your money.

[Qdrop]

because the capitalist failures are real, go to the poor part of town, go see books in most schools (and go see the condition of the schools themselves), try finding a breath of fresh air. yes, as if communist states have (had) no poor or desitute....

hmm...wait....communist states are (were) chronically poor and ravaged by famine....
hmm....

the horrors of capitalism are all around us and yet you continue to support the status quo and refuse to fight for change. you're a flake.

Once the last tree is cut and the last river poisoned, you will find you can not eat your money.

socialism/communism supporters excell at sanctimonious hyperbole...

but always leave much to be desired in the realm of economic, structural debate.

why is that?
why do their stances always center around emotional foot stomping...and rarely around economic data and substantiated historical data?

[avignon]

mostly working class. yes. why is that so bad?
it wouldn't be if the working poor were paid enough to take care of themselves and their families. Usually it takes one crisis for a person from this group to become completely destitute. Like a sickness or injury that prevents them from working.



bullshit. capitalism is questioned throughout the world by those living within it's system. there is no price to pay for speaking out against capitalism...we can say what we want when we want.
you want to blame capitalisms success and communism/socialism's failures on brainwashing? how conveniant... brainwashing is too strong a word. You know as well as I do that propaganda sways popular opinion.

it's very simple....list the communist/socialist nations that have succeeded at length?
list them.. that's relative especially considering what a young country the US is.

GEA and I had this discussion before...and he was at best, able to list a few tribal communities and factions throughout history and the world.....nothing comprable to a nation. what makes a tribal community worse than a nation? Small scale? I wonder if the tribal people are saying things like, "Well, we may not have nuclear weapons, but at least all of our needs are being met."

the old warhorse is that "well, that just cause capitalist countries squash them because they are threatened by them."
well, yes...they are competition...(USSR) so yes, we have frequently been in strife with them over the decades.
but who always wins?
why?
because one side has more money and can outlast the other...
which side is that and why?
You believe that the US "won" the cold war? That the US "defeated" the USSR? Or are you saying that the US won out of default because it outlasted them?


any social shifts we have made as a culture have always been within the boundries human nature...always.
education can help temper basic instincts that can confound societal values, sure...that's the value of human intellect... I thought that human nature was the same as our basic instincts and was something that we should strive to rise above by being civilized and intellectual.
but to say we can just collectively decide to change our nature because this new way is deemed "better" by some and walk off in to the magical sunset on a unicorn is just ridiculous.... Are you saying that the system that we live under has no cause to be reformed at all?

[kll]

As far as the welfare system, I think it was kll who brought up the fact that more people are on welfare than are on unemployment. Well, don't you think that underemployment is the main factor in that? What is the use in having a job that doesn't pay enough to provide for your family? Not everyone on welfare is lazy. Although I do recognize that the welfare system is constantly being abused by people. I think that those people should be punished. I think the system should be restructured. If the ones who don't need it stop receiving it, then there would be more for the ones who truly do. But as to how to acheive that, I have no idea. I don't know how to keep people from having more children when they already can't provide for the ones they have, without violating their rights.

Agreed.

IMO, the issue is that people have grown dependent on a system that should only be in place as a temporary solution. The government has allowed people to abuse the system and has ruined it for the rest who truly are in need. The whole idea of receiving more money if you have more children should be abolished. Again, TEMPORARY should be the key word.

[kll]

I just think there needs to be some limits on income and then more of that being distributed amongst the lesser paid people. I think there are people who do work better/faster/smarter, and they do deserve to get paid more. It's the people who walk away from crumbling companies with multi-million dollar pay-outs that is just wrong and how the fuck they get away with that shit is beyond me.

I don't see how you can set limits on income. What is a lot of money to one person is not a lot to another, so how do you decide how much is too much income? In this country, you have a choice. You either do a job or not. You have a choice to attend school or not. You have a choice to have unprotected sex and risk pregnancy or not. People who do good work, who are faster and smarter may or may not be rewarded for it. It's their choice though whether or not to stay in their chosen job or not. If I make $100,000 a year as a single woman with no children, but my co-worker makes the same amount with a wife and six children, who is going to be considered more "well off" financially? Me, of course. If my co-worker is barely making ends meet because five of his six children are in college and all need cars and clothing, it is his own choices that put him there. If I am on minimum wage working at a shitty fast food restaurant in the middle of the U.S. and the only food that I get is what I can sneak from work, then it would be quite irresponsible of me to have unprotected sex and get pregnant. It would be even more irresponsible to continue to have children with my only income being that, I alone can't even afford.
Why is it that the educated/financially stable people are putting off having children until they are older or not at all?Why do the poor, who may or may not be poor if they were to be single with no dependents continue to have more and more children? Why are people not held more accountable for their actions? Instead of looking for handouts, people need to stop passing the buck and take some fucking control and discipline with their actions and think of the consequences.

[Qdrop]

I don't see how you can set limits on income. What is a lot of money to one person is not a lot to another, so how do you decide how much is too much income? In this country, you have a choice. You either do a job or not. You have a choice to attend school or not. You have a choice to have unprotected sex and risk pregnancy or not. People who do good work, who are faster and smarter may or may not be rewarded for it. It's their choice though whether or not to stay in their chosen job or not. If I make $100,000 a year as a single woman with no children, but my co-worker makes the same amount with a wife and six children, who is going to be considered more "well off" financially? Me, of course. If my co-worker is barely making ends meet because five of his six children are in college and all need cars and clothing, it is his own choices that put him there. If I am on minimum wage working at a shitty fast food restaurant in the middle of the U.S. and the only food that I get is what I can sneak from work, then it would be quite irresponsible of me to have unprotected sex and get pregnant. It would be even more irresponsible to continue to have children with my only income being that, I alone can't even afford.
Why is it that the educated/financially stable people are putting off having children until they are older or not at all?Why do the poor, who may or may not be poor if they were to be single with no dependents continue to have more and more children? Why are people not held more accountable for their actions? Instead of looking for handouts, people need to stop passing the buck and take some fucking control and discipline with their actions and think of the consequences.


(y)

god, i love you so much right now.

[Qdrop]

it wouldn't be if the working poor were paid enough to take care of themselves and their families.

Usually it takes one crisis for a person from this group to become completely destitute. Like a sickness or injury that prevents them from working. see Kll's post above.


brainwashing is too strong a word. You know as well as I do that propaganda sways popular opinion. yeah, but i think people give such social leaning waaaaay too much credit.
we are all fully capable of deciding things on our own.
look at us here....having a discussion about...without any societal hinderance...

people like capitalism, not simply because they are told to...but because it WORKS well for many of us...most, actually.

i am a middle class worker.
i have a decent living...but i will never be rich....ever.
i am certainly ONE health/finacial crisis away from bankruptcy...

and i love capitalism....not because i'm a pig headed lemming...but because i love the oppurtunity i have....i like the system around me....i think it is fair in principle...and with time, will continue to be fair in practice.

that's relative especially considering what a young country the US is. as if the US is (was) the first, only capitalist country?

what makes a tribal community worse than a nation? Small scale? I wonder if the tribal people are saying things like, "Well, we may not have nuclear weapons, but at least all of our needs are being met." the point being...communism cannot work on anything bigger then a tribe or small community.


You believe that the US "won" the cold war? That the US "defeated" the USSR? Or are you saying that the US won out of default because it outlasted them? yes. more money.....happier nation....


I thought that human nature was the same as our basic instincts and was something that we should strive to rise above by being civilized and intellectual. well...rise above may not always be the apt term. we should understand/except and not ignore our human nature...but we needn't be complete slaves to it...which, in itself is a impossibility (a myth).

Are you saying that the system that we live under has no cause to be reformed at all? of course not...read my earlier posts....

[avignon]

I don't see how you can set limits on income. What is a lot of money to one person is not a lot to another, so how do you decide how much is too much income? In this country, you have a choice. You either do a job or not. You have a choice to attend school or not. You have a choice to have unprotected sex and risk pregnancy or not. People who do good work, who are faster and smarter may or may not be rewarded for it. It's their choice though whether or not to stay in their chosen job or not. If I make $100,000 a year as a single woman with no children, but my co-worker makes the same amount with a wife and six children, who is going to be considered more "well off" financially? Me, of course. If my co-worker is barely making ends meet because five of his six children are in college and all need cars and clothing, it is his own choices that put him there. If I am on minimum wage working at a shitty fast food restaurant in the middle of the U.S. and the only food that I get is what I can sneak from work, then it would be quite irresponsible of me to have unprotected sex and get pregnant. It would be even more irresponsible to continue to have children with my only income being that, I alone can't even afford.
Why is it that the educated/financially stable people are putting off having children until they are older or not at all?Why do the poor, who may or may not be poor if they were to be single with no dependents continue to have more and more children? Why are people not held more accountable for their actions? Instead of looking for handouts, people need to stop passing the buck and take some fucking control and discipline with their actions and think of the consequences.
Do you care that a lot of children are being raised without learning the proper tools to help them make sound decisions? Or are they just natural born trash and we leave it at that?
I don't think you understand how debilitating certain circumstances make a person. If it were all as simple as making the right choices, then I choose to to change everyone's attitude about issues like this and give everyone enough means to support their families and give their children solid opportunities to rise out of the station in life that they were born in. It just takes more than choosing. When you are born into a family that is living at poverty level, when you come of age and are able to make choices that will affect your future, you have no springboard. You begin your adult life at less than zero. For a lot of people that means that one mistake and your opportunities are gone.
I am surprised that you didn't bring up the fact that government funded programs provide more help for people with children. The more children the more help, not just welfare but also tax cuts, and financial support for higher education. A lot of people see this as rewarding people for being irresponsible. I do. I think that to change attitudes about becoming self-reliant, people should be given equal aid if they are below a certain income level. It should not change depending on whether you have children or how many children you have. But this also brings up the problem of do we punish children by neglecting their needs because they are born to parents incapable or unwilling to provide for them.

I don't pretend to know how to reform these social programs like welfare but I know they are necessary and that they are in bad need of reforming.

[avignon]

Qdrop, it's like you and I agree about certain problems but from completely opposite ends of the spectrum. We both see the practicle need to reform some things in this country, but we lay the blame on different things and approach solutions from different theories. I think that pretty much sums up the state America is in now. I just don't see why these differences should hinder our ability to get the work done and get much needed reforms made.



In other words, I'm running out of steam.

[Qdrop]

But this also brings up the problem of do we punish children by neglecting their needs because they are born to parents incapable or unwilling to provide for them.


situations like this (a hopeless poverty cycle) make me seriously consider supporting TAKING poor childern away from thier parents if it is show they cannot care for them without gov't support.

where would we put these children?
foster families are often corruptable, dysfunctional messes...

adoption? if they are over 4, no one wants them...

it's a tragic situation....

[avignon]

situations like this (a hopeless poverty cycle) make me seriously consider supporting TAKING poor childern away from thier parents if it is show they cannot care for them without gov't support.

where would we put these children?
foster families are often corruptable, dysfunctional messes...

adoption? if they are over 4, no one wants them...

it's a tragic situation....
I agree completely. But I refuse to believe that the only answer is to turn our backs and let them go on in that cycle of hopelessness.

[kll]

Do you care that a lot of children are being raised without learning the proper tools to help them make sound decisions? Or are they just natural born trash and we leave it at that? It is going to take the adults who CAN make the choices to NOT have children in poverty and not just federal aid to turn it around. We have generations of "trash" continuing the cycle. Unless these people can get some restraint in their penises and vaginas and not continue to breed when they cannot afford to even feed themselves, then it's a hopeless cause.

I don't think you understand how debilitating certain circumstances make a person. If it were all as simple as making the right choices, then I choose to to change everyone's attitude about issues like this and give everyone enough means to support their families and give their children solid opportunities to rise out of the station in life that they were born in. Just giving someone money is not going to do this though. You give the poor food stamps and they purchase shit. You give them $1000 and do they go out and invest, do they go out and buy clothing? I don't know. Do they? Do they buy useless "spinners" for their cars instead? I don't know. Do the poor instill in their children that they MUST get an education, that they MUST finish high school, do they make their children swear that they won't repeat the cycle? I don't know. Do they teach their children abstinence? Do they teach them the value of a dollar? I don't know.

I don't pretend to know how to reform these social programs like welfare but I know they are necessary and that they are in bad need of reforming. Again, I agree that they are in need of reforming, however, it doesn't take the place of personal accountability. Not having a springboard is an excuse to an adult. Basic common sense will tell you that I have $5 in my wallet, no job, so I probably shouldn't have children right now. People need to STOP THE CYCLE instead of falling victim to a statistic.

[SobaViolence]

the western world is doomed.

[zorra_chiflada]

the western world is doomed.

it has to get a lot worse before it gets better

it's interesting to see when anyone questions capitalism, q always jumps on their backs. it's like he's offended that anyone would see problems with it?
maybe because it's a system that hasn't failed him, and it matches his mindframe. so he will continue to call anyone that disagrees with him sanctimonius, even though the argument against capitalism is much stronger than the argument for it.

[ericlee]

sorry I haven't read all of this but it falls among the lines of distribution of wealth and the new event.

This whole thing is very generous of them and for the first time in my whole 2 years of living here, I am starting to gain respect from this:

Katrina aid pledge subject to Parliament nod: Haroun; 'We are duty bound to help allies'
KUWAIT CITY: Kuwait's initiative to offer financial assistance to the victims of hurricane Katrina has received a positive response from the people of the United States, says Acting Speaker of the Parliament and Chairman of the Finance and Economic Committee MP AbdulWahab Al-Haroun.Addressing media personnel after receiving the US Ambassador to Kuwait Richard LeBaron at his office, Al-Haroun said "LeBaron insisted on visiting our Parliament, which represents the people of Kuwait, to convey his appreciation of Kuwait's generous gesture and its effects on the US media." On the 500-million dollar assistance pledged by Kuwait to the victims of Katrina, Al-Haroun said "this is the least we can do to help our allies. We will never forget the stand taken by Americans in liberating not only Kuwait but also the entire region from the clutches of Saddam Hussein." He went on to say "I explained to LeBaron about the legislative procedures which have to be completed before we can send the financial assistance to the US."

The government has approved the assistance package, which should be presented in the form of a draft law to the Parliament, which in turn will allot the amount after its approval, he noted.Indicating some amount earmarked for such assistance in the state budget can be offered to the Americans as a first phase until the proposed draft law is approved, Al-Haroun said "the government has already ordered the transfer of this amount as it has the right to do so." "Ambassador LeBaron expressed his surprise at an article, published by a local daily and carried by several news agencies around the world, criticizing Kuwait's assistance," he said. "After our discussions the US Ambassador understood what was reported in the article was not the official stand of Kuwait or our society."

All civil societies and organizations in Kuwait should positively respond to this crisis and match the government's initiative, Al-Haroun said.Kuwaiti's generous offer of assistance for the victims of Hurricane Katrina is probably the largest offer from any friend of the US and gives real meaning to the sense of mutual obligation that is the essence of relationships with close allies LeBaron said.Speaking to reporters following a meeting with Al-Haroun, he thanked the acting speaker, members of the Assembly and the many other Kuwaitis "who have expressed solidarity and sympathy with the victims of the hurricane." He added the Kuwaiti offer of assistance "reflects the close bonds between our two countriesة and I hope that we can continue to be supportive to the many victims of this hurricane."

LeBaron explained that the two sides were currently working on the modalities for delivering the assistance, adding that "some assistance will move quickly and other assistance will require Assembly approval, so it will be a little later but it will continue to be necessary." The ambassador went on to say that the most efficient way to assist hurricane victims right now was through the Kuwait Red Crescent Society as it had "offered its services to channel donations very quickly," thanking it for its services in this regard."The vast majority of Kuwaitis have been very supportive and sympathetic and have demonstrated deep bonds of friendship between the two societies," LeBaron said.In response to a question on US-Gulf relations following the Sept 11 attacks, he said, "I think that what 9/11 allows us to do is to reflect on the fact that terrorism strikes in many different places in many different ways and has many victims around the world."

"We cannot dwell on victims in only one place, and I think that the 9/11 commemoration will be designed to honor the memory of victims of terrorism around the world and not just in the US," he added.As for the issue of Kuwaiti detainees in Guantanamo, LeBaron said, "This is an issue under discussion between the two (US and Kuwaiti) governments and we just have to see how that comes out." The Cabinet had allocated in its session on Sunday $500 million to assist victims of Hurricane Katrina which hit the US states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama early last week, claiming the lives of thousands and leaving many homeless.Energy Minister Sheikh Ahmad Al-Fahad Al-Sabah had said in a statement that the aid would include oil derivatives and humanitarian assistance needed by the victims in the three US states.

- By Ben Arafaj Al-Mutairi - Special to the Arab Tim

[Qdrop]

it's interesting to see when anyone questions capitalism, q always jumps on their backs. it's like he's offended that anyone would see problems with it? no, i just hate when people speak out against it using nothing more than generic hyperbole....
you, pres, and soba have little to know economic training or knowledge. you continually speak from ignorance....and rather than pushing to look at the human psychological side or the economic side of this argument...you just spew out endless Marxist type quotes and cute anti-capitalist soundbytes.

so he will continue to call anyone that disagrees with him sanctimonius, oh the irony.

even though the argument against capitalism is much stronger than the argument for it.
you wouldn't know...
you've never bothered to attempt it....
you just parrot what others (like your boyfriend) say, like a good little lemming.

[kll]

^
I find this interesting...


Really, if you live in another country other than the U.S., have never lived in the U.S. and are younger than say 25, then it's very hard for you to criticize capitalism as you only know what you've heard through the media (which is totally biased) or what you were taught by whatever slanted author wrote in books... unless you are a tax paying citizen, living outside of your parents home and working to make ends meet for more than six months, it is very difficult to come up with an educated response because you just don't know...

I have enjoyed avignon's thread a lot... I usually never express my political views on this board and have enjoyed the debate... I hope avignon hasn't taken anything personally and I enjoy reading varied opinions by people who know what they are talking about...

[avignon]

I have enjoyed avignon's thread a lot... I usually never express my political views on this board and have enjoyed the debate... I hope avignon hasn't taken anything personally and I enjoy reading varied opinions by people who know what they are talking about...
I appreciate you taking my views seriously enough to debate them when you disagree. I enjoyed this very much. It is very important to me that you or no one else in this thread was condescending to me. I don't pretend to know everything or be highly educated about this subject and I got some honest opinions and answers to things that I didn't know or understand.
I adore you, Keri, and just because we disagree about some things doesn't change all of the things that I like about you.
(That was me blatantly hitting on you......baby. ;) )

[kll]

(That was me blatantly hitting on you......baby. ;) )

Thanks for the grope. I needed it. *bites ass in return*

[GreenEarthAl]

Hello. My name is Alex. I am in my thirties. I work to support myself. And I, too, think QDrop can be a real sanctimonious blowhard.


And I resent all of the mischaracterization that is trying to suggest that all progressives want to see poor people trapped in a cycle of dependence. Seems quite obvious, that people who want something to be done about poverty, are not proponents of cripling poverty and systems that maintain cripling poverty.


Progressive people were against Welfare as it existed before conservatives realized what a brilliant strategy it would be. Back when Ronald Regan was inventing fictitious welfare queens and promising Americans that if elected he would restore to them their God given right to be self-interested to the point of not even remembering that other people exist, many progressive thinkers were railing against the welfare state and the Democrats who refused to change it and fix the things needing to be fixed.

I remember being in my early twenties and 3rd pass would say "Oh yeah, another scam see, that's the government's way to destroy the family" and thinking that was so profound and agreeing with it so completely. And then the 104th congress came into power with a new hybrid combination of blame the poor, BUT have "compassionate conservatism" for them. Show the American people how father Newt just loves the poor people so much and he wants to take the welfare away because it hurts them. Well duh. There ARE NO ADVOCATES OF GIVE A MAN A FISH. Progressives do not advocate it. Conservatives don't advocate it. The New Deal and the Social Security programs were a great idea and they helped build this country and provide what was great about it, but when things got hot, and people were to the brink of revolution over the "conflict" in Vietnam and the lack of Civil Rights... LBJ and Nixon and Ford and Carter's administrations morphed all that was good about them into a molification state just to placate the poor masses. Just waiting for such a time as Regan come come along and begin the PR paintbrush of how evil and shiftless the poor are.

I'll romanticize the poor all I want thank you very much. I have looked into their humanity and I love them, and I am them. I am the poorest person I know. And education is what you make it. And the one thing I know from bashing my head up against a brick wall trying to find out what WILL help the poor, is that the government is not it. It is not in the government's best interest to educate the poor, or to teach critical thinking skills to anyone, or to have the poor ever get enough free time or resources that they could take some time to seriously consider what's going on in the world around them. Anyone that seriously gives a shit about poor people should get away from trying to use the government as a medium to aid the poor as soon as they possibly can and just start helping out directly. Just start building community in your backyard, because, seriously, Republicans and Democrats are old money automatons just as useless as you might ever ask them to be.

End transmission.

[Qdrop]

And I resent all of the mischaracterization that is trying to suggest that all progressives want to see poor people trapped in a cycle of dependence. Seems quite obvious, that people who want something to be done about poverty, are not proponents of cripling poverty and systems that maintain cripling poverty.

[...] There ARE NO ADVOCATES OF GIVE A MAN A FISH. Progressives do not advocate it....


it's not that I or others are implying that progressives DO advocate free handouts and dependancy...
but that thier preferred programs and sentiments lead to just that!

and i find it humorous that YOU call me a sanctimonious blowhard....

you love to play the "wise man sitting upon his perch" persona like a fucking fiddle.
you love to revel in your apparent state of desitude...as if you being stuck in poverty somehow clears your eyes and lets YOU see the society in an enlighted way, that us yuppies just can't percieve.

as if poverty is something to be proud of....like a badge of honor that you were proudly.

when the fact of the matter is....you're poor cause you're a fucking semi-failure at life.
i don't see where this higher level of insight is paying off for you.....ol' wise one.

you may have many of these board member sucking at your "salt of the earth, almost black, starving-artist" teet.....but don't count me among them.

[GreenEarthAl]

Not true.

I am a complete success at life. When I most recently reevaluated my life and figured out what my goals were, having a lot of money didn't really show up on the radar. Things that were important were achievements such as forming deep and meaningful relationships with lots of people. Creating art that changes the way people think and that has the potential to persist. Reducing my footprint (environmental impact on the planet). Keeping in good health and respecting my body.

I am so happy with how I am progressing in all of those endeavors.

And another thing. Fuck you!

[Qdrop]

yet 2 posts from now, somewhere on this board...you'll be boasting about how poor you are to someone....


literally.

[kll]

You say you are the poorest person you know, but is that poor in the sense that in your circle of friends, you are the one who lives paycheck to paycheck and never puts anything into savings and has to bring the '$2 buck chuck' bottle of wine over for a dinner party instead of a bottle of Silver Oak Cabernet? Or are you living below the poverty line and hiding from the bill collectors?

I would consider myself "poor" because I have overextended my lifestyle by having a hefty mortgage that I, alone, am responsible for, but I am upper-middle class to most if I am compared to the poverty line. I think there is definitely a difference in being poor based on your lifestyle and income vs. being poor, on welfare, with no where else to go. Being poor because you are a student, eating Top Ramen nightly because you just spent all your money on tuition and books is a choice, not POOR because your kids need diapers and you have to forego something.

[zippo]

5 years from now, GEA, you'll still be a failure, you'll still have no publishing deal, you're band will still have no deal, the earth will be no better thanks to you, and only about 10 more people will have heard your name.


have fun saying shit like this to peoples faces in real life

what?

[TurdBerglar]

qdrop's an asshole

[Qdrop]

qdrop's an asshole

praise from Ceasar.

[zippo]

qdrop's an asshole

quit stroking his ego

[GreenEarthAl]

Incorrect again my friend. The world gets better thanks to me on a daily basis, or at the very least it get's worse less rapidly. I do what I can. And on more days than not I will have someone tell me directly what a positive impact I have had on their lives. Usually shortly after or shortly before I tell them what a positive influence they've been on my life. Reciprocation. Like WOAH!

I apologize if I come off as boastful about my poverty. I don't view it in my mind as anything boastworthy but nor do I view it as anything that has any bearing on my success or failure as a person. I am of the view that a great many Americans are up to their eyeballs in debt and too ashamed to talk about it and this allows the powers that be to alienate those individuals and keep them frlom getting together and figuring out their next move. If you can have 100 million Americans or so in deep debt but they're also all deeply divided and private about their debt then they have little hope of ever collectivizing their outrage and organizing around it. So I personally decided a while back to be niether ashamed nor proud that they turn my gas off every summer. I will readily confess to the fact that credit card companies have me pinned behind 27% APRs and other useristic corporations are after me just as hard.

As to my publishing and performing. It would be very, very difficult for a publisheing corporation to give me a publishing deal since I have never offered them the opportunity to do so. I have a self published very indie collection of books that I've authored. I have shoped them around at Zero publishers thus far. I would consider letting Beacon Press (the publisher associated with my church) publish it solely because I trust them not to alter the message and the spirit of it. When I perform on stage I do so to convey a message and to enjoy myself. I found it to be more effective and more validating than just launching lyrics into the internet (which even by itself was adequate to be considered success in my view). I have been heard of by as many people as I need to have been heard of by. I'm always happy to find new audiences, but, whatever if I don't.

[GreenEarthAl]

You say you are the poorest person you know, but is that poor in the sense that in your circle of friends, you are the one who lives paycheck to paycheck and never puts anything into savings and has to bring the '$2 buck chuck' bottle of wine over for a dinner party instead of a bottle of Silver Oak Cabernet? Or are you living below the poverty line and hiding from the bill collectors?

Valid point. I have chosen most of my own poverty to some degree. I don't drink, but I do end up having to scrape change together to bring the $2.00 orange juice to the housing co-op potluck. I am living well below the poverty line and acknowledge that it has more to do with an unwillingness to submit myself to various vocations than an inability or an ignorance about my options. It is two very different things. Nevertheless, I know of very few poor people who's net worth is as large a negative number as my own, so I can claim the distinction of being the poorest person I know with a clear conscience. It is a statement that is semantically sound.

[ericlee]

sorry I haven't read all of this but it falls among the lines of distribution of wealth and the new event.

This whole thing is very generous of them and for the first time in my whole 2 years of living here, I am starting to gain respect from this:

Katrina aid pledge subject to Parliament nod: Haroun; 'We are duty bound to help allies'
KUWAIT CITY: Kuwait's initiative to offer financial assistance to the victims of hurricane Katrina has received a positive response from the people of the United States, says Acting Speaker of the Parliament and Chairman of the Finance and Economic Committee MP AbdulWahab Al-Haroun.Addressing media personnel after receiving the US Ambassador to Kuwait Richard LeBaron at his office, Al-Haroun said "LeBaron insisted on visiting our Parliament, which represents the people of Kuwait, to convey his appreciation of Kuwait's generous gesture and its effects on the US media." On the 500-million dollar assistance pledged by Kuwait to the victims of Katrina, Al-Haroun said "this is the least we can do to help our allies. We will never forget the stand taken by Americans in liberating not only Kuwait but also the entire region from the clutches of Saddam Hussein." He went on to say "I explained to LeBaron about the legislative procedures which have to be completed before we can send the financial assistance to the US."

The government has approved the assistance package, which should be presented in the form of a draft law to the Parliament, which in turn will allot the amount after its approval, he noted.Indicating some amount earmarked for such assistance in the state budget can be offered to the Americans as a first phase until the proposed draft law is approved, Al-Haroun said "the government has already ordered the transfer of this amount as it has the right to do so." "Ambassador LeBaron expressed his surprise at an article, published by a local daily and carried by several news agencies around the world, criticizing Kuwait's assistance," he said. "After our discussions the US Ambassador understood what was reported in the article was not the official stand of Kuwait or our society."

All civil societies and organizations in Kuwait should positively respond to this crisis and match the government's initiative, Al-Haroun said.Kuwaiti's generous offer of assistance for the victims of Hurricane Katrina is probably the largest offer from any friend of the US and gives real meaning to the sense of mutual obligation that is the essence of relationships with close allies LeBaron said.Speaking to reporters following a meeting with Al-Haroun, he thanked the acting speaker, members of the Assembly and the many other Kuwaitis "who have expressed solidarity and sympathy with the victims of the hurricane." He added the Kuwaiti offer of assistance "reflects the close bonds between our two countriesة and I hope that we can continue to be supportive to the many victims of this hurricane."

LeBaron explained that the two sides were currently working on the modalities for delivering the assistance, adding that "some assistance will move quickly and other assistance will require Assembly approval, so it will be a little later but it will continue to be necessary." The ambassador went on to say that the most efficient way to assist hurricane victims right now was through the Kuwait Red Crescent Society as it had "offered its services to channel donations very quickly," thanking it for its services in this regard."The vast majority of Kuwaitis have been very supportive and sympathetic and have demonstrated deep bonds of friendship between the two societies," LeBaron said.In response to a question on US-Gulf relations following the Sept 11 attacks, he said, "I think that what 9/11 allows us to do is to reflect on the fact that terrorism strikes in many different places in many different ways and has many victims around the world."

"We cannot dwell on victims in only one place, and I think that the 9/11 commemoration will be designed to honor the memory of victims of terrorism around the world and not just in the US," he added.As for the issue of Kuwaiti detainees in Guantanamo, LeBaron said, "This is an issue under discussion between the two (US and Kuwaiti) governments and we just have to see how that comes out." The Cabinet had allocated in its session on Sunday $500 million to assist victims of Hurricane Katrina which hit the US states of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama early last week, claiming the lives of thousands and leaving many homeless.Energy Minister Sheikh Ahmad Al-Fahad Al-Sabah had said in a statement that the aid would include oil derivatives and humanitarian assistance needed by the victims in the three US states.

- By Ben Arafaj Al-Mutairi - Special to the Arab Tim

holy shit, why the hell did I post this in this thread? Damn I hate drunk posting

[tracky]

kll, my point was that no one needs a $4,000,000 a year income. They can have $1,000,000 a year and the other $3,000,000 can get divided up amongst the true money-makers of the company, the workers. CEO's and what have you do have to make the big descisions, but do you see them taking the fall when the company goes to shit? No, they walk away and take a few million to boot. That's the kind of shit that annoys me

[kll]

kll, my point was that no one needs a $4,000,000 a year income. They can have $1,000,000 a year and the other $3,000,000 can get divided up amongst the true money-makers of the company, the workers. CEO's and what have you do have to make the big descisions, but do you see them taking the fall when the company goes to shit? No, they walk away and take a few million to boot. That's the kind of shit that annoys me
*quickly hides my $4,000,000/year income and walks away quickly*

[SobaViolence]

GEA is my board hero.