• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

A question. (For those on the right.)

DeacMan said:
Well, I doubt anyone here thinks it is a good or acceptable situation for people to live in a shanty town where there is no electricity, running water and people can literally starve to death. So we should be able to move on from that premise. And, since 99% of all American homes have clean water, electricity and heat, we seem to be doing a pretty decent job on those standards already.
Click to expand...

You posted that pic as a translation of pour’s point, in which he said there is an argument over “if and how” we should help those over the $2,000 line.
 
DeacMan said:
Do you want to engage in a conversation or just engage in pretending you are somehow morally superior.
Click to expand...

Sure. Because claiming our poor people have it better than other countries' poor people and therefore we're doing just fine isn't morally superior at all.
 
This whole thread is a red herring but I do have one request. Can we retire the "bootstraps" retort from the board lexicon? Of all the unhelpful annoying phrases this has to be the holy grail. That's all. Carry on.
 
avalon said:
You posted that pic as a translation of pour’s point, in which he said there is an argument over “if and how” we should help those over the $2,000 line.
Click to expand...

No, I read Pour's point differently than you.

And that brings me right back to what I said. Which you apparently don't want to accept or would rather poke holes at. No one here thinks it is a acceptable for people to live in a shanty town where there is no electricity, running water and people can literally starve to death. And, again, since 99% of all American homes have clean water, electricity and heat, we see to be doing a pretty decent job on that basic standards already.

Now, presuming folks can accept we take care of basic needs, can we move onto an actual discussion about how to try and advance people out of poverty. We spend about 1 trillion a year on welfare programs. And we have not really moved the needle significantly on moving folks out of functional poverty in the last 40 years.
 
DeacMan said:
I'll take this as a "no" - you don't want to engage in a conversation and would rather lather yourself.
Click to expand...

No I do not want to engage in a conversation with someone who uses the term "lather yourself."
 
DeacMan said:
No, I read Pour's point differently than you.

And that brings me right back to what I said. Which you apparently don't want to accept or would rather poke holes at. No one here thinks it is a acceptable for people to live in a shanty town where there is no electricity, running water and people can literally starve to death. And, again, since 99% of all American homes have clean water, electricity and heat, we see to be doing a pretty decent job on that basic standards already.

Now, presuming folks can accept we take care of basic needs, can we move onto an actual discussion about how to try and advance people out of poverty. We spend about 1 trillion a year on welfare programs. And we have not really moved the needle significantly on moving folks out of functional poverty in the last 40 years.
Click to expand...

And, again you have yet to provide a link to this statistic, or comprehend that 99% of houses doesn't equal 99% of Americans.
 
ONW said:
And, again you have yet to provide a link to this statistic, or comprehend that 99% of houses doesn't equal 99% of Americans.
Click to expand...

ugh, down the rabbit hole again...
 
Down the rabbit hole indeed. You are really asking for links to prove 99% of Americans have electricity and running water?

States with the highest percentage of households without complete plumbing. See, 99% have it.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/census/2002-07-05-plumbing.htm

And per the US Department of Energy in 2005 100% of all households had a refrigerator and 99% had a TV - things that require ELECTRICITY.

Care to contrast those stats with the percentage of homes worldwide that lack these basic things almost all Americans take for granted. Again, we do a great job providing basic amenities to our citizens - food, shelter, electricity, running water, heat, etc.

Now pull yourself out of the hole and start talking about how we advance people out of poverty. Because this isn't a debate about the provision of basics. That's done very well in this country.
 
Of course DeacMam changes the criteria.
 
Wrangor said:
This whole thread is a red herring but I do have one request. Can we retire the "bootstraps" retort from the board lexicon? Of all the unhelpful annoying phrases this has to be the holy grail. That's all. Carry on.
Click to expand...

Wrangor,

I know that you are a Southern evangelical and therefore stupid, so let me try to explain the brilliance of the one-size-fits-all "bootstraps!" rejoinder in simple terms that even you will understand. You may find yourself in a situation where the other person is arguing that no sustainable anti-poverty initiatives will succeed unless they are based in the threshold requirements of personal responsibility, or other similarly antiquated notions. People that argue such things are of the mistaken belief that the poor are our equals or at least could provide for themselves without our benevolent and totally not patronizing intervention. Pay them no mind. These naieve dupes of the Koch brothers don't understand how inferior poor people are and how ill-fitting the concepts of work, education and personal accountability that have been indispensable to our own personal and professional successes (and that of everyone in our extended families and friends) are to the inferior and helpless poorer classes. It's sad that they are so naeive as to think the poor could survive without our intervention. Work? Independence? Upward mobility? Why, they just wouldn't suit, you see?

Only when our friends on the right attain the more nuanced understandings of our condesce...., er-compassion, will they understand that you must first embrace the inferiority of another man before true compassion towards him can begin. A wise man once said, "You give respect by showing no respect at all."
 
Shorty said:
Including local, state, and federal, America spends roughly $1 trillion per year fighting poverty. That's about $20,600 per poor person. The federal government alone spends over $600 billion on about 125 programs. We've spent over $15 trillion since President Johnson declared "War on Poverty" in 1964. And today there are roughly 46 million Americans living in poverty, making the overall poverty rate pretty close to what it was at Johnson's 1964 declaration.

I am not against helping the poor. I'm against spending money on something that doesn't work.
Click to expand...


So a single welfare sow with three sucklings serves as an excuse for .govs to force more than $80k out of the poor, defenseless taxpayer? If this is true that is really all we need to know about government welfare. It simply enriches the people in government and their friends while providing a pittance to those unfortunate enough to being fucking each other all day instead of working.
 
Good lord. As a finance nerd, all I wanted to do was to point out that pour's numbers were nonsensical. I should know better than to jump into a debate that has been going on for pages and pages across various threads. That's silly-time.

DeacMan, continue along with whatever convo you want to have, you clearly are doing so already. I'm going to go watch hockey.
 
What is an acceptable standard of living? Shantytown is a little low. Electricity, running water, and tvs are a little high. We're slowly narrowing this down.
 
WFFaithful said:
What is an acceptable standard of living? Shantytown is a little low. Electricity, running water, and tvs are a little high. We're slowly narrowing this down.
Click to expand...

I have avoided this thread at all costs because it was born in sarcasm, and generated a very small amount of thoughtful discourse...but this is actually a very good question. What is our intent in helping the poorest among us? It is a very complicated question.

You mention TVs in jest, but that is a real issue. We have people who are completely supported by the government that can't afford to send their kids to college, that waste $130/month on Direct TV. This is a symptom of the problem. The problem is that EVERYONE (and I mean all economic classes) expects to live the American dream RIGHT NOW. If we see our neighbor with something we are 'owed' the same thing. It is not fair for my neighbor to be able to have something that I cannot. This was always the one area that BKF and I agreed upon (just verbalizing that probably earns me some negrep) but we have a sickness in this society. Every level of our economy wants more and more and more. The problem is that other than the top 5% nobody can afford it.

So what happens? The middle class goes in debt, the poor spend money intended to help them survive on entertainment expenses and the all the while the rich get richer and richer. All levels are involved and all are effected. All levels are being unwise in my opinion. So when you ask 'what is an acceptable standard of living' that is a pretty difficult question.

My personal opinion is that we should provide enough food and shelter in order to prevent people from starving, but not so much in which they are able to survive long term observing the status quo. I think we need to increase exit opportunities for the next generation with severe and radical changes to the way we educate in lower income populations. We need more jobs, but the poor aren't qualified for any jobs even if they were present so that wouldn't make a huge impact. The kids graduating from the public schools in impoverished schools often have a difficult time reading and doing simple math. What possible job could they fill outside of flipping burgers?

I honestly believe we could restructure our aid system to provide more motivation (we have discussed tying some sort of performance/work aspect to the welfare system...) but the most important long term change we can make is overhaul the educational system in this country. Personally I would disassociate the federal government with all public schooling and allow the states to have full autonomy. I would have the fed pour money in, but take their hands off the reins. We need targeted local efforts to combat each situation. The solution to Greenwood, MS is not the solution to the Bronx. As I have discussed, we have a massive teen pregnancy issue in the Delta. This effects our schooling and takes away possible life opportunities for a large portion of the poor in our area. Large scale solutions don't work in these sort of environments. States are more self interested in provided a solid public education than the federal government could ever be.

Anyway - that is my diatribe and attempt to have thoughtful discussion. Provide food and shelter for the poor but tie it to some sort of public work/service. Throw a ton of effort/brainpower/money into revamping our educational system.
 
Last edited:
Is $20,600 per person per year enough for food and shelter? Is $12,743 per pupil per year enough for elementary and secondary school education? Perhaps private charity could do a better job.
 
i know one thing. i'm about to use the term "bootstraps" on every thread wrangor posts on. maybe multiple times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top