S&P downgrades US rating from AAA

[Sergeant Thorne]

...you're **** me. You honestly believe this. And you accuse me of ignoring reality. You're so far dismissed from it that I don't even think you're worth arguing with. I can only hope that we fix our ass-backwards education system at some point, so that we stop producing people who are that blind to reason.

2 things: (1), I didn't learn this in a classroom; and (2), I am not a product of your ass-backwards education system.

[CUDA]

I'm not "liberal," so I don't take it either way. And there's a big difference between using the term and using it in a derogatory fashion. In any case, are you going to pull the lame, "They do it, so I can do it too!" excuse? Please.

First of I said get a think skin not a thick head.
Lets get back to your original problem with my use of the term "Left" in a derogatory manner that seems to have you so upset

the HH of the left

please show me where I used the term "left" in a derogatory manner in that statement. because it is the only time I used the word. Do you even know who or what HH is??? Slick does. So please explain to me how me calling slick HH is a derogatory use of the term "left"

[Foil]

[Moderator note: Watch it, guys. There's good conversation here, between the potshots. Keep it professional.]

[flip]

From what I've gathered, those people started calling themselves "the left" because they associated themselves with the left hand of Christ during the worst of the religious persecution they were suffering.

And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.

[Will Robinson]

You can forget the left and right and repubs and dems etc. etc.
It's time to affiliate yourselves with either the sane or the insane.

Obama's budget says he will take in $8757 per US citizen in 2011.
His budget says he will spend $12,430 per US citizen in that same year.

He's probably lying about how much he really expects to take in, it will probably be less.
He's probably lying about how much his programs will cost, they will probably cost more.

Even if he isn't lying he wants to spend roughly 30% more than we have this year alone.
To send up a budget like that in these times is nothing short of insane.

[Top Gun]

...you're **** me. You honestly believe this. And you accuse me of ignoring reality. You're so far dismissed from it that I don't even think you're worth arguing with. I can only hope that we fix our ass-backwards education system at some point, so that we stop producing people who are that blind to reason.

2 things: (1), I didn't learn this in a classroom; and (2), I am not a product of your ass-backwards education system.

I think even the ass-backwards education system would have been a major step up from where you did learn it, because you were obviously taught wrong.

Lets get back to your original problem with my use of the term "Left" in a derogatory manner that seems to have you so upset

the HH of the left

please show me where I used the term "left" in a derogatory manner in that statement. because it is the only time I used the word. Do you even know who or what HH is??? Slick does. So please explain to me how me calling slick HH is a derogatory use of the term "left"

When that phrase is immediately preceded by "how droll and infantile," tell me how else I'm supposed to take it.

[Tunnelcat]

DOW down 419.63 today. Can I get off this roller coaster now? I'm about to hurl.

But at least Fitch's kept our AAA credit rating (take that S&P), for all the good that'll do with Europe in the tank.

I'm kind of curious. What does HH mean CUDA?

[callmeslick]

Anyone with 2 brain cells to spare, knew CUDA was not referring to children in his comment.

I know enough about CUDA to know he didn't MEAN to refer to them, but that is the only significant group that pays NO FEDERAL TAXES.

[callmeslick]

No one complained in the 50s,

and you know this how??? you weren't around in the 50's to remember it. so you must be taking someones word for it

my father and mother, who are both very much alive today(in their 90's), and travelling in social circles where one could have rightly expected to hear such complaints. Good enough for you?

Who is feeding you this class warfare crap?

your President!!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ama-style/

ok, Sun Yung Moon's newspaper. Fair enough. The argument is crap. The war is long over. You lost.


also, you still seem to think, for some bizarre reason that Federal Income tax is the only tax revenue source the nation has. Individuals pay all sorts of taxes. I spelled some of them out for you. I even showed you that Payroll taxes are a very large outlay for some folks. I pointed out that a lot of folks pay no payroll taxes.
Still, you persist with the 'DNC' nonsense, bad-mouthing the 'left' and choosing to ignore facts when they don't fit your mean-spirited, limited worldview, fed by Fox News and the Moonie Times. This is your excuse for logic and reasoning? C'mon, CUDA, I know damned well you can do better.

[callmeslick]

DOW down 419.63 today. Can I get off this roller coaster now? I'm about to hurl.

But at least Fitch's kept our AAA credit rating (take that S&P), for all the good that'll do with Europe in the tank.

I'm kind of curious. What does HH mean CUDA?

don't panic, because ALL you are seeing is a bunch of little guys freaking with their 401k's and pension accounts, while the real money sits back and KNOWS they are letting bargains go by. Meanwhile, gold, by all credible reports I have read in the past month, is well on the way to being the next nasty bubble. Too many rubes buying in a 1400 or more. Watch it plummet to 900 or so within a year. And the rich, they get richer still. Ain't class warfare grand!

Oh, and if CUDA doesn't mind, HH is a right-wing troll with the IQ of a walnut on another board. He even tried to follow me to a fly-fishing USENET board to harass me and then went after the wrong person. A real prize that one.

[CUDA]

Who is feeding you this class warfare crap?

your President!!
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... ama-style/

ok, Sun Yung Moon's newspaper. Fair enough. The argument is crap. The war is long over. You lost

and like a Phoenix I rise from the dead
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/obam ... /id/407435

Libertarians and conservatives blasted President Barack Obama’s populist attack on Congress and wealthy Americans Monday, calling it a blatant attempt at class warfare

and for the liberal perspective
http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the ... ss_warfare

In his opening statement, Obama made a case for cutting tax breaks for some of the most privileged Americans. He specified "millionaires and billionaires, oil companies, hedge fund owners, and corporate jet owners," a kind of murderer's row of top-hatted icons that average Americans are likely to have little sympathy for. Class warfare, to be sure, but completely justified class warfare.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44552

Obama's Latest Class Warfare Catchphrase: 'Corporate Jet Owners'

well there is 3 home runs to your strike-out (Opinion) or no facts IE links to corroborate your position
and I can provide more links both liberal and conservative if you'd like. there is class warfare going on. you denying it does not make it less true.

also, you still seem to think, for some bizarre reason that Federal Income tax is the only tax revenue source the nation has. Individuals pay all sorts of taxes. I spelled some of them out for you. I even showed you that Payroll taxes are a very large outlay for some folks. I pointed out that a lot of folks pay no payroll taxes.
Still, you persist with the 'DNC' nonsense, bad-mouthing the 'left' and choosing to ignore facts when they don't fit your mean-spirited, limited worldview, fed by Fox News and the Moonie Times. This is your excuse for logic and reasoning? C'mon, CUDA, I know damned well you can do better.

this whole discussion has always been about Income-tax. because your argument against the rich at 18% falls apart if you calculate all the other taxes that are paid when "the Rich" purchase things. your dancing around the issue to make your stance look better.

also please address my points about the raising of the taxes on the wealthy

I said ELIMINATE THE LOOP HOLES. there are too many ways for the "wealthy" to use loop holes to show little or no income. and if you do not call for Tax reform and elimination of those loop holes then you calling for Tax increases on the "wealthy" is all just a big show on your part and will have no value to our economy. and your either Naive or stupid if you think that if they raise the Tax rate on those people that they wont just find more loop holes to show they don't make anything to pay Taxes on.

choosing to ignore facts when they don't fit your mean-spirited, limited worldview,

and lets do away with these comments please. My "mean-spirited Limited World View. is based on the Reality of an unsustainable system. and your call to "raise taxes" on the rich is PURELY for show if you don't close the loop hole. and you know it. it's just more of the class warfare that is OBVIOUS and has been reported on by BOTH side. it's just another way of Pandering to your base.

YA Lets Screw the rich people those Bastards are making our lives hell. just look at TC if you need anymore proof.

Ironically with all your cry's to "RAISE Taxes" on the rich you have never called for Tax reform and closing those loop holes. all you say is raise taxes. makes one wonder why.

And as many people on "the Left" (quoted so I don't insult TG) will do, Especially Liberal Politicians. they do just what you did when they have a disagreement. if someone does not agree with a liberal they attempt to demagogue. and use ad-hominem attacks to discredit your stance instead of making an honest attempt to debate the issues. we can agree to disagree. it doesn't mean I'm mean spirited if I disagree with you. it just means we disagree. trying to discredit me only lowers the value of your argument, while that might work with your base it doesn't work with the rest of us. I have stated Time and Time again that I am not against welfare. I'm just against Users. and those that work the system. and those taking from the system without paying anything into it.(which by the way you personally suggested that I do to make my life easier. )
don't try to make it look otherwise. debate the facts with me and stay civil.

[CUDA]

Lets get back to your original problem with my use of the term "Left" in a derogatory manner that seems to have you so upset

the HH of the left

please show me where I used the term "left" in a derogatory manner in that statement. because it is the only time I used the word. Do you even know who or what HH is??? Slick does. So please explain to me how me calling slick HH is a derogatory use of the term "left"

When that phrase is immediately preceded by "how droll and infantile," tell me how else I'm supposed to take it.

you really should go back and read what I wrote again. you do realise that there were 3 sentences in there do you not???

you just tried to demonize me for my stance.PERIOD

How DROLL and infantile.PERIOD

the HH of the left.PERIOD

it is obvious where I was directing my statement because I said YOU, not YOUR, THEY, LIBERALS, or THE LEFT. it was obvious that I was directing my comments in a specific direction. now if I has stated how Droll and infantile the left is you would have a Valid point. but I did not. so you took offense because you wanted to take offense. not because I used a derogatory term to describe "the Left" which I did not do and you know it.

[CUDA]

Oh, and if CUDA doesn't mind, HH is a right-wing troll with the IQ of a walnut on another board. He even tried to follow me to a fly-fishing USENET board to harass me and then went after the wrong person. A real prize that one.

I don't mind at all. and I think your being insulting to Walnuts. Walnuts are smarter and My apologies slick. I prefer a good debate on an issue. I'll try to keep it at that level.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I think even the ass-backwards education system would have been a major step up from where you did learn it, because you were obviously taught wrong.

You've failed twice to insult the origin on my opinions, why don't you either waste your personal feelings elsewhere or step up and elaborate on why you're so sure I'm wrong. There are a great many things I've learned and developed opinions on through my own perceptions and experience, which I believe are varied enough to dismiss naivety as a primary inspiration. It's almost amusing, and certainly revealing that you so naturally look to blame foreign programming for hostile or alien views. Give it 10 years and maybe you'll learn to reason for yourself (when you're done accessorizing yourself with attractive opinions and actually begin to understand some of them). Experience is no teacher to those with a lack of discernment, however.

[Top Gun]

The fact that you need me to explain why saying that people living in a state of poverty lack "moral foundation" or "wisdom" or "initiative" is evidence enough that you're wrong. Did you just drop right out of the 1850s or something? What sort of bizarre idealized world do you live in, anyway?

Oh, and please do save the condescending "experience" bull★■◆●, as you obviously haven't learned much of anything from yours.

[Tunnelcat]

DOW down 419.63 today. Can I get off this roller coaster now? I'm about to hurl.

But at least Fitch's kept our AAA credit rating (take that S&P), for all the good that'll do with Europe in the tank.

I'm kind of curious. What does HH mean CUDA?

don't panic, because ALL you are seeing is a bunch of little guys freaking with their 401k's and pension accounts, while the real money sits back and KNOWS they are letting bargains go by. Meanwhile, gold, by all credible reports I have read in the past month, is well on the way to being the next nasty bubble. Too many rubes buying in a 1400 or more. Watch it plummet to 900 or so within a year. And the rich, they get richer still. Ain't class warfare grand!

Well, sitting it out is the only reasonable strategy while all this crazy buying and selling is taking place. All that "profit" is going into somebody's pocket somewhere too. Certainly not mine. After they make their profit off the scared sheep and tank the market, they'll be looking for someplace to put that ill gotten wealth it back into when gold goes south (which the insiders will make loads of money on too), and the stock market will always beckon. But any sucker buying gold NOW is going to get taken for a really big ride when this new "bubble" does go "pop".

Oh, and if CUDA doesn't mind, HH is a right-wing troll with the IQ of a walnut on another board. He even tried to follow me to a fly-fishing USENET board to harass me and then went after the wrong person. A real prize that one.

Oh, never mind then.

YA Lets Screw the rich people those Bastards are making our lives hell. just look at TC if you need anymore proof.

Why do you think I want to "screw" the rich? I'm not "poor" myself, and I pay my taxes, especially the exorbitant property taxes we have in Oregon. I could just a easily say I'm not going to pay those high property taxes for schools because I don't have any children myself, so those taxes shouldn't apply to me. Isn't that a little self-centered and self-righteous? What I don't approve of is the slow destruction of our common educational system by cutting tax revenue or issuing vouchers with tax dollars in order to support "charter schools", which in many cases are private-for-profit and religious in nature. You want to fix the schools, put an effort into fixing them, not cut out the best parts and leave the wilted scraps for those who can't afford to go to a more expensive charter school.

What I am for is a tiered simplified progressive tax system, where those who are more wealthy, and fortunate in this country, pay a larger proportion of their income AND PROFITS in order to help support the commons of our nation. That includes corporations as well. If they don't want to pay taxes on profits, these guys should just plow that money back into their companies, LIKE THEY USED TO DO, way back before Reagan and GROW THE COMPANY. Now the strategy of today is for some shyster investment group with no stake in some company's products to buy said company, bleed off as much profit as possible while stagnating it's products, then letting it go into decline while screwing the employees out of their pensions and wages, and when almost all that's left is a dead husk, sell off the remaining good parts and abandon that husk, leaving behind a trail of lost jobs and dead dreams.

Now sure, this tax structure might raise my taxes from what they are now, but as long as the economy is stable, people are working and I get a steady income to live off of from my investments, I'm happy. What I want with those tax dollars in return is a strong police force, a reliable fire department, good education for all that's not religious or private based, primary through university, good roads and licensed drivers, safe food to eat, affordable single-payer health care (not going to happen in my lifetime), reliable power and water supplies, all waste taken care of safely and properly, crime is low and support is there during some natural disaster. Most of these things are necessities required for modern life and private enterprise does NOT give me those items for a good cost, because they want take a profit off the top and aren't really concerned about the welfare of their "buyers". Private enterprise is there to make money, not see to the welfare and being of it's costumers.

If you buy into the "resentment of the poor leaches" arguments that populate FOX News, there's a better fix than to wage war on the poor and middle class, just make it a priority to purge the system of leaches in the first place. By the way, the rich can be bigger leaches on a society than all those poor leaches combined. They have the stature and power. Human nature is the same whether someone is rich or poor. The poor don't have a lock on laziness just as the rich don't have a lock on strong work ethics.

[callmeslick]

Oh, and if CUDA doesn't mind, HH is a right-wing troll with the IQ of a walnut on another board. He even tried to follow me to a fly-fishing USENET board to harass me and then went after the wrong person. A real prize that one.

I don't mind at all. and I think your being insulting to Walnuts. Walnuts are smarter and My apologies slick. I prefer a good debate on an issue. I'll try to keep it at that level.

heck, no offense taken.....rather, a good laugh. Likewise, I hope you realize that I don't THINK you mean to disparage children as parasites. That is merely my semi-sarcastic way of pointing out that children or the profoundly handicapped are probably the only two major groups of citizens that don't pay any taxes.

[callmeslick]

What people lack who suffer from poverty is, in order from first to last, moral foundation, wisdom, initiative, and education. .

this may be one of the most ignorant sentences I have read in a while. As someone else suggested, it is straight out of 19th century thinking. Or, maybe the thinking of Ayn Rand(who, ironically, ended up collecting Social Security, IIRC).

Lets break down these lacking traits with a bit of reality thrown in:
1.Moral Foundation--so, some kid born in, say, rural North Carolina in a shack, to parents who are
migrant will become affluent so long as they impart a strong moral foundation? Any evidence for that?
Because, I've known a few people who were dirt-poor, who I have personally assisted financially, who
seem to have a very strong moral foundation.

2. Wisdom--define wisdom, because I don't even see where that is all that quantifiable. Show me, once
again linking wisdom to financial outcome. Further, I have spent my whole life encountering fabulously
wealthy individuals who made unwise decisions constantly, yet were still wealthy. As were their heirs.

3. Initiative--so, here you are suggesting that some inner city kid with a couple of drug addicted parents
can simply rise above his or her circumstances because they want to? Any examples of the times this
works out, as opposed to the times it doesn't?

4. Education--so, when I grew up, child of well-off parents, with my choices of any prep school or a top
notch public school, I had no better opportunity than the kid raised in Appalachia walking, often with
an empty stomach to a lousy rural school? Are you under some delusion that the educational playing
field isn't skewed from the get-go?
sorry, but you are flat out delusional on all counts, Sgt. Poverty, in virtually all cases, is firmly rooted in the
economic status you were born to. Sure, one can find exceptions to the rule, but, by and large, if you are
born poor, you will die poor in this nation. And, in these glorious modern times, what one can see, if one looks closely, are a ton of people who were born moderately affluent(middle class) and will die poor. Great
system, huh?

[Spidey]

The fact is, the majority of children in this country who now live in poverty, belong to a single parent home.

The case can be made of the morality of bringing children into poverty, and actually generating poverty, by choosing to to have children out of wedlock.

I’m not making any kind of case as to the morality of having children out of wedlock, in and of itself, only the poverty as a result.

IMHO subjecting a child to poverty, due to selfish reasons (the desire to have a child, or some varient) is in fact a question of morality. Once the chain of a single parent begins…it’s very difficult and unlikely to end…generation after generation.

You can even make a case for divorce here, if it has the same results. (placing an inocent child in poverty)

I could even go out on a limb and include people who made stupid decisions regarding home purchases…but I won’t.
Or drunkenness…or domestic violence…lots of other things that involve morality, can result in or continue poverty.

So just saying…your single and overly simple reasoning is once again…incorrect.

[callmeslick]

The fact is, the majority of children in this country who now live in poverty, belong to a single parent home.

The case can be made of the morality of bringing children into poverty, and actually generating poverty, by choosing to to have children out of wedlock.

except for the fact that there is little, if any, evidence that it really makes any difference. To give an example, my daughter is currently raising two children as a single mom after leaving their father(a lowlife
scum, but that's another story). I can guarantee you that those two children will never know poverty.

So just saying…your single and overly simple reasoning is once again…incorrect.

actually, what I am arguing against is oversimplified generalizations about intangibles. The facts show one thing: start life in poverty and you are more than likely to end it in poverty. And, more and more, it can be shown that if you DON'T start life with substantial wealth, you will end up in poverty, in our society. It's the resources available, coupled with a system designed to benefit the wealthy that can be seen, factually.
The effects of such intangibles as morality, etc, can be shown to have negative effects, but not shown to be the ultimate causality of poverty.

[Sergeant Thorne]

The fact that you need me to explain why saying that people living in a state of poverty lack "moral foundation" or "wisdom" or "initiative" is evidence enough that you're wrong.

Wait... I need you to explain? Evidence that I'm wrong? You're not making any sense.

This is a forum for debate. You're not debating, you're saying that I'm wrong because I'm so wrong. It's your right to state that I'm wrong, but if you want to end a debate--even a side debate--you need to give a reason rather than claiming victory with no argument other than that I'm stupid.

What people lack who suffer from poverty is, in order from first to last, moral foundation, wisdom, initiative, and education. .

this may be one of the most ignorant sentences I have read in a while. As someone else suggested, it is straight out of 19th century thinking. Or, maybe the thinking of Ayn Rand(who, ironically, ended up collecting Social Security, IIRC).

Lets break down these lacking traits with a bit of reality thrown in:
1.Moral Foundation--so, some kid born in, say, rural North Carolina in a shack, to parents who are
migrant will become affluent so long as they impart a strong moral foundation? Any evidence for that?
Because, I've known a few people who were dirt-poor, who I have personally assisted financially, who
seem to have a very strong moral foundation.

2. Wisdom--define wisdom, because I don't even see where that is all that quantifiable. Show me, once
again linking wisdom to financial outcome. Further, I have spent my whole life encountering fabulously
wealthy individuals who made unwise decisions constantly, yet were still wealthy. As were their heirs.

3. Initiative--so, here you are suggesting that some inner city kid with a couple of drug addicted parents
can simply rise above his or her circumstances because they want to? Any examples of the times this
works out, as opposed to the times it doesn't?

4. Education--so, when I grew up, child of well-off parents, with my choices of any prep school or a top
notch public school, I had no better opportunity than the kid raised in Appalachia walking, often with
an empty stomach to a lousy rural school? Are you under some delusion that the educational playing
field isn't skewed from the get-go?
sorry, but you are flat out delusional on all counts, Sgt. Poverty, in virtually all cases, is firmly rooted in the
economic status you were born to. Sure, one can find exceptions to the rule, but, by and large, if you are
born poor, you will die poor in this nation. And, in these glorious modern times, what one can see, if one looks closely, are a ton of people who were born moderately affluent(middle class) and will die poor. Great
system, huh?

I never said "someone in poverty would be affluent but for these traits:". No, let's not "break down" the traits. I was giving a list from first to last, not a list of traits to be taken individually. If you take your first example, and add all of the traits in order of importance, it would be inconceivable that such a person would die in poverty. Your argument may be the average, or even the rule, but I don't think you can say that it's the rule despite instances where individuals possess the qualities I've mentioned. Do I really need to define "wisdom", or are you just being augmentative in this instance?

[Top Gun]

Wait... I need you to explain? Evidence that I'm wrong? You're not making any sense.

This is a forum for debate. You're not debating, you're saying that I'm wrong because I'm so wrong. It's your right to state that I'm wrong, but if you want to end a debate--even a side debate--you need to give a reason rather than claiming victory with no argument other than that I'm stupid.

If you showed even a shred of rationality in what you're saying here, I'd attempt furthering a debate with you. But in my humble opinion, you're way beyond that point, so it'd just be a waste of digital oxygen.

[Sergeant Thorne]

The only thing that is irrational here is your explosion in response to what was a very rational and defensible argument on my part. Apparently you didn't like it. I'm still waiting for anything like a rational explanation for your indignation toward my assertion.

My primary point, going back, is that people living in poverty are not best served by hand-outs. I'm not trying to say that there aren't other factors in poverty, least of all economic factors, but with these 4 attributes, in order all/most other "factors" become nothing more than obstacles to navigate.

[Top Gun]

So you're telling me that suggesting that people who live in poverty are lacking in any or all of the points you raised isn't massively insulting and degrading toward said people.

Fantastic.

[callmeslick]

Let's frame this another way, for a moment, at least: Economic Mobility. In other words, the likelyhood of one escaping the economic conditions of one's parents. At one time, and for quite a long time, the US was the unchallenged leader in this aspect(although it could be suggested that data was incomplete and that lack of challenge was based on illusion). This study looks at where things stand now. Most of the conclusions put the lie, completely, to notions such as those put forth by the good Sgt.......

http://www.economicmobility.org/assets/ ... terIII.pdf

It would seem that more open access to quality education might be the single most important determinant
in whether a child grows up to live in poverty, and the US ranks rather poorly in that regard.

[callmeslick]

The only thing that is irrational here is your explosion in response to what was a very rational and defensible argument on my part. Apparently you didn't like it. I'm still waiting for anything like a rational explanation for your indignation toward my assertion.

My primary point, going back, is that people living in poverty are not best served by hand-outs. I'm not trying to say that there aren't other factors in poverty, least of all economic factors, but with these 4 attributes, in order all/most other "factors" become nothing more than obstacles to navigate.

sure, but if one, due to poverty of the parents, has no access to quality education, or the nutrition necessary to avail oneself of that education, poverty is unavoidable. 'Hand-outs', as you so cynically refer to them, are nothing but the attempts by a society to provide a bit of stability which will enable individuals to get out of poverty, or, for the elderly or disabled, at least ameliorate the harsher aspects of poverty. Maybe you view all poor people as somehow deserving the status due to their own shortcomings, but reality and data clearly show otherwise, for the VAST bulk of the poor. By your reckoning, around 2/3 of the planet is filled with people who are morally deficient or intellectually inferior. That reckoning is almost obscene in it's cluelessness.

[Sergeant Thorne]

So you're telling me that suggesting that people who live in poverty are lacking in any or all of the points you raised isn't massively insulting and degrading toward said people.

Fantastic.

You have a fun way of bringing up arguments. No I'm not telling you that, but since you bring it up... On the contrary, holding said people to the same standard as myself and everyone else is dignifying, as opposed to treating them like some lesser people that needs to live on handouts (can you say "Africa"?). When you make an exception for them that is insulting and degrading, whether you realize it or not.

Regardless of the fact that you have that exactly backwards, however, reality is reality, and even if it is supposedly "massively insulting and degrading" to call something like it is, that's never sufficient reason to modify reality (if reality coincides with "massively insulting and degrading", then I'd say its time to be up-front with someone anyway). One can be polite, and one can be sensitive, but there comes a time when something needs to be called just exactly like it is.

[Spidey]

My main problem with Slick’s rebuttal is, the confusion with what perpetuates something, and what causes it in the first place.

Something that continues a thing…is not a “root cause”.

To determine what is a “root cause” of poverty, you would have to take families that started well off, and ended up in poverty…and study the factors that led to it.

You could get rid of all of the poverty in this country tomorrow…and the root causes would bring it back.

[callmeslick]

My main problem with Slick’s rebuttal is, the confusion with what perpetuates something, and what causes it in the first place.

fair enough. I would be of the opinion that the root cause of poverty lies in circumstances. Wrong place, wrong time as much as anything.

To determine what is a “root cause” of poverty, you would have to take families that started well off, and ended up in poverty…and study the factors that led to it.

every economic system devised to date has winners and losers. The losers end up being the poor. Historically, the cause of 'losing' has included military conquest, environmental disaster or excessive societal infighting. Once large scale industry arrived, the general competition created a handful of bosses
(the winners) controlling the lives and fates of their workers(the losers). In our nation, however, the existence of a strong public education system and lots of available territory to migrate to created opportunities to move beyond your birth status. Such conditions do not exist any more in the US. Would you differ from my overall assessment, and, if so, where?

[Top Gun]

So you're telling me that suggesting that people who live in poverty are lacking in any or all of the points you raised isn't massively insulting and degrading toward said people.

Fantastic.

You have a fun way of bringing up arguments. No I'm not telling you that, but since you bring it up... On the contrary, holding said people to the same standard as myself and everyone else is dignifying, as opposed to treating them like some lesser people that needs to live on handouts (can you say "Africa"?). When you make an exception for them that is insulting and degrading, whether you realize it or not.

If you were really holding those people to the same standards as yourself, you'd never have made those comments in the first place.

Regardless of the fact that you have that exactly backwards, however, reality is reality, and even if it is supposedly "massively insulting and degrading" to call something like it is, that's never sufficient reason to modify reality (if reality coincides with "massively insulting and degrading", then I'd say its time to be up-front with someone anyway). One can be polite, and one can be sensitive, but there comes a time when something needs to be called just exactly like it is.

Except what you said isn't "like it is." At all.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Two can play this game.

If you were really holding those people to the same standards as yourself, you'd never have made those comments in the first place.

Yes I would.

Except what you said isn't "like it is." At all.

Yes it is.

[Zuruck]

The root cause is income inequality. Poor people aren't always lazy or unmotivated just as rich people aren't always snobby assholes. But judging by your attitude, you've never tasted desperation like them. You should go down to the south side of chicago and tell everyone that they lack moral foundation, wisdom, initiative, and education.

With very few exceptions aside, most people are born into a system where they never have a chance. Takes money to make money.

[Top Gun]

Two can play this game.

Except what you said isn't "like it is." At all.

Yes it is.

Now see, after slick ripped about twenty holes in your little spiel, you don't exactly get to play the game anymore. That's usually the time when you take your ball and go home.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I replied to callmeslick.

[Top Gun]

Yes, and your reply didn't really respond to the points he made, and didn't show any more of a grasp of the reality of the situation than your initial statement did. Again, a person's financial status says absolutely nothing about their personal qualities...looking at the current state of the economy alone more than proves this. There are a lot of good, intelligent, well-educated people out there who are currently working dead-end minimum-wage jobs, or not even employed at all. There are plenty of other people who were doing fine for themselves, until a perfect storm of circumstances beyond their control left them with next to nothing. So tell me, does your big ol' brush paint them all the same color too?

[Ferno]

What people lack who suffer from poverty is, in order from first to last, moral foundation, wisdom, initiative, and education.

normally, i'd start out by replying to this in a smartass and ironic way, then proceed to fricassee each piece one by one. but since i'm under the poverty line, I can't help but think this is describing my situation and I find it to be just absolutely reprehensible and, as slick said ignorant to the nth degree. Not to mention, it would be a complete waste of effort on my part since any reply I would make would fall on deaf ears.

congratulations thorne. you've found something that I won't touch. I just hope you get a real-world education on this. Now if you'll excuse me.. I need to go throw up.

[Spidey]

Ok Ok I’m convinced, we are all just victms of circumstances, sheesh I wish I had realized this before I spent most of my life working my ass off to improve myself.

[Top Gun]

No one here is saying that hard work can't get you out of poor circumstances into better ones, because it often can. But even in the best scenario, there's a degree of luck and/or favorable conditions that come into play. Someone else might not have had the lucky break or two that you received, or their area might not have had the opportunity that you took advantage of. You can be the most hard-working and dedicated person out there, but if everything else is completely stacked against you, it's only going to take you so far, maybe not even out of poverty.

[Spidey]

That’s depressing…no wonder there are so many who don’t even bother trying.

[CUDA]

I've found you make your own luck instead of relying on it