DescentBB

Over the past 40 years we have been fighting an unwinnable war. With no great success stories, and billions of dollars squandered, we should stop while we aren't infinitely behind.

We should stop the war on poverty.

Hey, if we should stop the war on terror after only 5 years, whats wrong with this? We aren't winning the hearts and minds of the impoverished, they still hate us.

Do we even have a timetable for pulling out of the war on poverty? No.

Why do we continue to fight this war, hurting good law abiding Americans by raising taxes to fund the poor, and lowering property values because of their existance.

I have an idea.
The left should accept the war on terror and the war on drugs, in return the right sould accept the war on poverty.

It's a win-win scenario, with the war on drugs raging, alot of the left's constituents will receive a higher gross than if drugs became legal and the market was regulated; and the right will continue to win the war on terror.

By that standard the war on drugs should be in the front of the line.

lol funny stuff CB. but since this is E&C i guess we have to find the seriousness of it.

i dunno, i hear the poor are handled strangely in USA - with crazily-low minimum wages etc. It's not really a war i'm familure with locally (maybe we're winning it in australia? *shrug*). So i'll sit this one out. nite!

It's not the low wages, roid, it's the money stolen from them in taxes and corporate thievery. $5 an hour would be a livable wage otherwise. Not good living, but livable.

roid wrote:i hear the poor are handled strangely in USA - with crazily-low minimum wages etc.

Being overweight is a serious problem among the poor in America. There ARE a very small percentage of Americans who are actually hungry, but there are generally unusual extenuating circumstances.

A few facts about America's "Poor":
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

* Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
* Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
* Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
* The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
* Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
* Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
* Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
* Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Please, please, PLEASE tell me that you aren't serious about letting the poor die of poverty so that your fellow citizens can live a very little better.

I wonder just how much poverty and crime would be eliminated if no one was hooked on drugs or alcohol?

roid, there is a \"war on poverty\"

The \"War on Poverty\" was first introduced by Lyndon B. Johnson during his State of the Union address on January 8, 1964.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_Poverty

\"It was through the Declaration of Independence that we Americans acknowledged the eternal inequality of man. For by it we abolished a cut-and-dried aristocracy. We had seen little men artificially held up in high places, and great men artificially held down in low places, and our own justice-loving hearts abhorred this violence to human nature. Therefore, we decreed that every man should thenceforth have equal liberty to find his own level. By this very decree we acknowledged and gave freedom to true aristocracy, saying, 'Let the best man win, whoever he is.' Let the best man win! That is America's word. That is true democracy. And true democracy and true aristocracy are one and the same thing. If anybody cannot see this, so much the worse for his eyesight.\"
--Owen Wister in \"The Virginian,\" New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1911.

The war on poverty is the lowest priority. If this so-called war was of any importance, hundreds taxes would be dropped. HUNDREDS. And that's a lowball figure.

I mean, just in gas tax alone...people have to drive to work. 40 cents per gallon in tax? That's $6 in taxes every time you fill a 15 gallon tank. With my drive to work, and catering to a woman, I fill my tank every 3 days. That's about $70 a month I pay in JUST gas tax. Just one tax. Add on every utility-based federal and state tax has anyone ever tried adding those up? Don't forget to include the new added surcharge from utilities where now the companies estimate their taxes, and charge you a percentage of that value so now YOU are paying their taxes...isn't that nice?

Kilarin, who do you think bought all that crap for them? WE DID. Most of them are welfare recipients. WE pay their rent, WE pay for thier food. This leaves these morons a few dollars they do what, save? Yes? No! They piss it away on plasma TV's and spinners. Why do you think these ghetto crackheads pump out a new 'miracle' before their oldest turns 18? Hafta keep that free check coming. This and the stuff they buy can be had for soooo cheap, yard sales, theft, etc..

I'm kind of doubtful about the census figures. I've been in poor neighborhoods, quite a few of them. 90% of them are in apartments, a raft of kids, no car, or some $100 junker that manages to get the only employed person there to McDonald's. Sometimes, they are so overwhelmed with trying to impress the idiot next door, so they go out and buy the shiniest crap they can find with whatever money they have left over, none of it worth much more than they paid. Excluding cabletv..instead of trying to better themselves, they sqander their time watching MTV Cribs on a home theatre they got from Rent-a-Center.

Kilarin wrote:"It was through the Declaration of Independence that we Americans acknowledged the eternal inequality of man. For by it we abolished a cut-and-dried aristocracy. We had seen little men artificially held up in high places, and great men artificially held down in low places, and our own justice-loving hearts abhorred this violence to human nature. Therefore, we decreed that every man should thenceforth have equal liberty to find his own level. By this very decree we acknowledged and gave freedom to true aristocracy, saying, 'Let the best man win, whoever he is.' Let the best man win! That is America's word. That is true democracy. And true democracy and true aristocracy are one and the same thing. If anybody cannot see this, so much the worse for his eyesight."
--Owen Wister in "The Virginian," New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1911.

98% of the time, poverty has very little to do with 'may the best man win'. Most of the time, the poverty was created by other people.
It's also a very greedy approach, to think that it's their problem and they should sort it out themselves. As I said, most of the time the problem wasn't their fault.

TIGERassault wrote:It's also a very greedy approach, to think that it's their problem and they should sort it out themselves. As I said, most of the time the problem wasn't their fault.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "most" of the time, but I would admit "much" of the time.
Which is beside the point. The problem is that, regardless of the cause, when the GOVERNMENT tries to fix poverty, it almost inevitably makes things worse.

Not to mention the ethical issue of "who do I take money from, by force, to give it to the poor?" And "Who are the poor?"

Example: Shortly after I got married, I was working at a low wage job. It was paying above minimum wage, but not WAY above it. I WANTED a snazzy programming job, but the economy was bad, and the oil bust had just flooded the job market, and so I settled for what I could get because I wanted to support myself and my wife.

So, I'm earning a pittance, and My wife was in school full time and had no significant income. Making ends meet was a struggle each month, but we were pulling it off with a lot of self sacrifice and hard work.

Some time later, I'm still in the same job (earning a bit more now, but still not a lot), and we went to visit some friends. The topic of unemployment insurance came up because my friend was out of work. His unemployment insurance had paid for the contracted period, and he was still out of work. The government decided to EXTEND his unemployment insurance beyond the contracted period. TWICE. At taxpayers expense.

My friend had had a very nice job, and lived in a big house, drove a nice car, etc. There WERE jobs available, but none making the same salary he had been. Someone suggested that perhaps it wasn't fair for the government to be taking money away from those of us who were working at low paying jobs and giving it to my friend so he wouldn't have to take a low paying job. My friends wife became furious and insisted, "You can NOT expect people to change their standard of living!!!"

Who was poor? My out of work friend? Or the several of us at the party who had "settled" and were supporting our families on a fraction of his income? The governments idea of helping the poor was to take the money from the low wage earners to support the lifestyle of the high wage earner.

I DO support helping the needy. And I put my money where my mouth is, I donate to private charities. Private charities that I have investigated to make certain they are using my money ethically and efficiently. I RESENT the money that the government takes from me by force, waste mostly on unnecessary bureaucracy, and then delivers the tiny amount thats left in ways that do not, in my opinion, help eliminate or alleviate poverty.

The United States of America is SUPPOSED to be about choice. Including the choice of where, when, and how you will choose to donate your hard earned dollars to those less fortunate.

Umm... I was actually thinking of global poverty; as in third-world countries, where the people really do have very little money. I wouldn't know of the conditions of a worker in a developed country.

TIGERassault wrote:I was actually thinking of global poverty; as in third-world countries,

Ah! I see. yes, different situation.
Although, similiar answer in many ways. There is enough food to feed everyone, but there aren't enough good governments to allow everyone to earn the food they need to live.

But now....



There's a solution!




Eat the poor.

Mobius wrote:Eat the poor.

Why don't you write up this Modest Proposal of yours?

Kilarin wrote:Ah! I see. yes, different situation.
Although, similiar answer in many ways. There is enough food to feed everyone, but there aren't enough good governments to allow everyone to earn the food they need to live.

Yes, but we're the ones that are hoarding most of the food.

Mobius wrote:But now....



There's a solution!




Eat the poor.

HAHAHAHAHAH!
Oh geez, that made my day!

\"Whatcha got on that Shishkabob?\" \"Onions, potato(e)s and Jim!\"

The US Gvmnt paid farmers to not grow food for years. I guess they still do it. They could have grown, been paid, and shipped overseas. Didn't happen, did it. I've heard/read/thought up that the midwest could feed the parts of the world that had nothing each season while still producing what they normally sell each year. Or something?

If we put 1% of the money we waste on gvmnt, we could feed a country. 2%, three countries. I don't know what the gvmnt steals each year, but 1% of it would be 10x what the Gates foundation gives away a year.

Now we know who doesn't care. Why are they still in office?

Exactly right, we have poor hungry people because of Bush, or anyone else in office.


The vast majority of people are not in their position because of what other people did. People get to where they are by what they themsleves do.

Kilarin wrote:The United States of America is SUPPOSED to be about choice. Including the choice of where, when, and how you will choose to donate your hard earned dollars to those less fortunate.

It's not a choice vs. no-choice debate. It's a debate of whose choice trumps whose. I'd wager that the freedom of class mobility is just as important if not more important than the freedom of a corporate CEO to spend the final few of his billions of USD.

Jeff250 wrote:I'd wager that the freedom of class mobility is just as important if not more important than the freedom of a corporate CEO to spend the final few of his billions of USD.

And, as stated in the "Virginian" quote, the freedom of class mobility is the freedom to make your own fortune, or to fail to do so.

Virginian per Kilarin wrote:By this very decree we acknowledged and gave freedom to true aristocracy, saying, 'Let the best man win, whoever he is.' Let the best man win!

Except this is where libertarianism fails. If you had a race and wanted the best runners to win, you wouldn't start some racers half-way to the finish line, some already over it, and disqualify others before they even get to the starting line. You would ensure that it's a fair race and have each man start from the same place.

Along the same lines, don't you think that any political ideology that claims to want the best man to win should make sure that each man starts out with at least a certain level of footing in childhood?

Kilarin wrote:And, as stated in the "Virginian" quote, the freedom of class mobility is the freedom to make your own fortune, or to fail to do so.

I don't think that class mobility is fully contained by the idea of having a theoretical possibility of making X dollars in a lifetime. It also entails that a certain level of merit be necessary. I mean, is winning the lottery a legitimate example of class mobility? Maybe, but it's certainly not the sort of class mobility that we should be pushing for in society. It should be closer to if you have X merit you could be able to make Y progress in society, the opposite also being true.

Jeff250 wrote:I don't think that class mobility is fully contained by the idea of having a theoretical possibility of making X dollars in a lifetime

Oh, I absolutely agree! When I said, "fortune", I didn't mean as in wealth, I meant as in "fate; lot; destiny". Which includes wealth, if that is the destiny you wish. But can include LOTS of other things as well.

But here is where we part company:

Jeff250 wrote:It also entails that a certain level of merit be necessary. I mean, is winning the lottery a legitimate example of class mobility? Maybe, but it's certainly not the sort of class mobility that we should be pushing for in society. It should be closer to if you have X merit you could be able to make Y progress in society, the opposite also being true.

You see, I won't try to define what success should mean for everyone else. And I certainly wouldn't attempt to define merit.

As soon as society starts "pushing" for a particular kind of "success", I think we are in trouble. Let success define itself. Otherwise the main thing we are accomplishing is limiting the options for people we disagree with.

I think climbing up the social ladder because you can throw a ball or knock down people who are trying to throw a ball is just plain silly. Put me in charge of the world and football players (and most sports stars) would be pretty low in society. People would be chasing physicists asking for their autographs. And TV commercials, well...

My world TV commercial:
Freeman Dyson is at the chalk board, furiously working on a difficult formula. A kid walks up and says, "Dr. Dyson, I think you're the best!", and gives him his coke. Dyson drinks it, cue music, Dyson smiles and tosses the kid a piece of chalk...

BUT, thank goodness, I'm not in charge. Others define success differently than I do, and just so long as they do not harm anyone else in the process, let them do it however they wish.

As for equal starting points, it's impossible. Try too hard and you destroy the entire system. It IS harder for people who come up in the inner city to be a great success. Harder, but by no means impossible. Too many have managed to fight through the problems and succeed no matter what obstacles stood in their way for any to say it can't be done. And many people who started off with every advantage have been utter failures.

It all works out in the wash. Life is not a sprint, its a marathon. In a marathon, some people start in front, and some people start in back, but over the long haul, it doesn't much matter where you started, just how well you run.

Kilarin wrote:

TIGERassault wrote:I was actually thinking of global poverty; as in third-world countries,

Ah! I see. yes, different situation.
Although, similiar answer in many ways. There is enough food to feed everyone, but there aren't enough good governments to allow everyone to earn the food they need to live.

i have to agree. And as hesitant as i am to suggest it: Regime change should be on the table as a suggested part of any possible solution. Then again... Socialism sounds cool too.

heh, when you grow up on He-Man and GI-Joe, brute force to solve international problems make some kindof sick childish form of sense. Thundercats HOOOOOOOO!!!!

But i guess we're not really suggesting solutions here (that'd be epic), just discussing the nature of the problem itself.

Kilarin wrote:And I certainly wouldn't attempt to define merit.

Wait, so when you were saying, "'Let the best man win, whoever he is.' Let the best man win!"--was the best man best with respect to some sort of merit, or was he best with respect to something else other than merit?

roid wrote:heh, when you grow up on He-Man and GI-Joe, brute force to solve international problems make some kindof sick childish form of sense. Thundercats HOOOOOOOO!!!!

It's not just some TV show that might give someone the idea that force is a necessary tool. Forget growing up on He-Man, try 'growing up on history' and you will find that most international problems don't get solved without brute force or the fear of it!
So is it being childish or pragmatism that leads one to accepting these methods?

Jeff250 wrote:was the best man best with respect to some sort of merit, or was he best with respect to something else other than merit?

The "best" according to whatever standard the individual wants to use, since there is no outside authority to judge between them. Some will judge based on wealth. Others based on fame. A few will set education as their goal, a very few their contribution to humanity. Some want to make it into the history books, others just want to own a piece of land.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Define happiness however you wish, and pursue it to your hearts content. If you think wealth is what makes someone succesfull, you are free to TRY and become wealthy. No one should come along and tell you that you CAN'T earn more than a certain amount because of your religion or the color of your skin. If you feel that getting a doctorate degree defines success, then no one should stop you from trying to get one because you were born into the wrong social class.

Please note, its the PURSUIT of happiness, success is not guaranteed, just your right to try.

Will Robinson wrote:

roid wrote:heh, when you grow up on He-Man and GI-Joe, brute force to solve international problems make some kindof sick childish form of sense. Thundercats HOOOOOOOO!!!!

It's not just some TV show that might give someone the idea that force is a necessary tool. Forget growing up on He-Man, try 'growing up on history' and you will find that most international problems don't get solved without brute force or the fear of it!
So is it being childish or pragmatism that leads one to accepting these methods?

i don't read your posts anymore, patience worn away by abrasive attitude and personal attacks.

roid wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

roid wrote:heh, when you grow up on He-Man and GI-Joe, brute force to solve international problems make some kindof sick childish form of sense. Thundercats HOOOOOOOO!!!!

It's not just some TV show that might give someone the idea that force is a necessary tool. Forget growing up on He-Man, try 'growing up on history' and you will find that most international problems don't get solved without brute force or the fear of it!
So is it being childish or pragmatism that leads one to accepting these methods?

i don't read your posts anymore, patience shreaded by abrasive attitude and personal attacks.

Which post didn't you read? The one you quoted or a different one?

...

Will Robinson wrote:It's not just some TV show that might give someone the idea that force is a necessary tool. Forget growing up on He-Man, try 'growing up on history' and you will find that most international problems don't get solved without brute force or the fear of it!
So is it being childish or pragmatism that leads one to accepting these methods?

I can imagine it now...

Will Robinson wrote:Jesus never existed. Martin Luther was just a character made up to make the Black people happier. What's a Ghandi?

TIGERassault wrote:I can imagine it now...
Jesus never existed. Martin Luther was just a character made up to make the Black people happier. What's a Ghandi?

Your imagination is running on a poorly tuned engine!

As far as I can tell Jesus didn't succeed in stopping the Romans and the Romans conquered the jews and ran them out of their own country. So I'd say his peaceful resistance is a struggle that still goes on today and it will be the end of the world before anyone knows if he succeeded...

Dr. King may be the one most noted for the civil rights struggle but even his peaceful methods didn't succeed without the use of force. One of many examples would be when President Kennedy had to send the federal troops down to alabama to challenge the state police and governor Wallace who were using force to stop black americans from attending the university there.

I'm sure I could find examples of instances where Ghandi inspired people in Great Britian to give up their imperialistic venture in India and police or British troops were required to quell the protests.
who knows maybe the brits were so well mannered they gave up the colonies without any internal riots or embargos or lockouts etc. but even if it's so that is only one measely example.

So I'll stand by my assertion that most international problems are solved by force or the fear of it. I'm betting the ratio is overwhelming that for every one Ghandi like figure that stopped an invasion, occupation or oppression there are at least twenty examples of an army stopping the same thing.
Go look at all the times a country's borders were defined and you'll find it took a war to bring the people to the negotiations.
How many times has a border dispute been solved by fasting?!?!
How many times has an invasion been turned back by a candlelight vigil?

How silly is it that I merely point out this simple fact of life and some of you get your panties all in a twist!

Will Robinson wrote: How many times has a border dispute been solved by fasting?!?!How many times has an invasion been turned back by a candlelight vigil?

How silly is it that I merely point out this simple fact of life and some of you get your panties all in a twist!

Vintage Mr Robinson....i luv it!

woah, have we gotten off topic hehehe

Sorry.
Here's a thought, if you win the war on drugs you could severly reduce the poverty and probably improve the education level as well.
But a new method for fighting the war is needed because just taking prisoners doesn't win a war.
Drug abuse and addiction are medical, moral and psychological problems more than they are crime problems.

Indeed. And less people would be poor if they weren't spending all their money on drugs. Hey that reminds me...

Testiculese wrote:Indeed. And less people would be poor if they weren't spending all their money on drugs. Hey that reminds me...

Weed was $20 an ounce when I first started smoking it, it was $160 an ounce when I got smart and quit. I don't know how much you pay now but lets try a little experiment.
At one ounce per week if I had invested the money instead, using the $160 per week figure as an overall average cost, invested in an index fund using the markets performance during '70's 80's and '90's I would have 2.8 million dollars right now!

(forgot to subtract the capital gains tax which averaged around 28% during that span so the government would have $800,000 and I'd have $2 million)

Ahhh, but you see.....




You thought I was joking.






But I'm not.

Kilarin wrote:The "best" according to whatever standard the individual wants to use...

So when you're saying, "Let the best man win," what are you really saying? Let the man who is best at something, perhaps only best insofar as he is best at winning, win? I certainly see the descriptive value in it in that it describes the winners in any style of government, because if nothing else, the winners in any government are best at winning. But I don't see the prescriptive value in it, in how it's prescribing something we should value over something else or in how things could even be any other way.

War is like sex, one should never prematurely pull out.