Poverty

[JOEBIALEK]

With all the debate recently for amending the United States Constitution in favor of recognizing marriage as a union between a man and woman, perhaps a more appropriate amendment should guarantee each citizen of the United States the right to food, clothing, shelter and medical care. Poverty is defined as the condition of being poor or lacking the necessary means of support to live or meet needs. Today we read of enormous corporate tax breaks, outsourcing of jobs overseas and outrageous salaries "earned" by athletes/entertainers. More recently came the revelation of the $200 billion dollars spent by the U.S. on the war in Iraq. In the meantime, the number of those in poverty continues to increase. The Old Testament of the Bible often makes references to the promised land flowing with milk and honey. All one has to do in this country is take a trip to the grocery story or department store and bear witness to the fact that if anywhere was close to exhibiting the characteristics of "the promised land", this country is it. Yet somehow we are still unable to meet the four basic needs every citizen has. Some would argue that this proposal is an extension of Socialism/Communism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Socialism/Communism is a political or economic theory in which community members own all property, resources, and the means of production, and control the distribution of goods. No one is suggesting the replacement of Capitalism; an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned, and prices are chiefly determined by open competition in a free market. What is being suggested is that in this land of surplus "milk and honey", there is absolutely no reason why the four basic needs of every U.S. citizen cannot be met. Some would argue that food stamps, thrift stores, public housing and medicaid already meet these needs but in the words of President John F. Kennedy, "this country is divided between those who have never had it so good and those who know we can do better". I think we can do better. Resolved, it shall be the right of every United States citizen (in order to further guarantee the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) to receive food, clothing, shelter and medical care that is adequate to meet their basic needs.

[BOLO]

We should also include, Haircut, Car. (Cadillac or equal)
two story house with basement and recreation room, four car garage, four wheeler, and an electric or hybrid car. While we are out amending the Constitution lets add a couple of Amendments.
I want a Right to win the lottery.
I want a right to be given everything I do not currently posses. (Not possessing them make me a have not, I want to be a have.)
I want the right to retire at any age I want to with full benefits and appropiate increases in my retirement annuity.
Lets work on those and then move to the ones you want. By that time the ones you mention won't be that important.
Well thats all. Later. [Deep sigh of satisfaction at getting that off my chest.]

[scummybear]

JOEBIALEK said:

. . . should guarantee each citizen of the United States the right to food, clothing, shelter and medical care.

In the United States, everyone is granted the freedom to persue their wants. The above mentioned are not rights and shouldn't be. If they were, then there would be no America in terms of a great nation, or a nation of opportunity. If these were the "rights" of every citizen, there would be no incentive for productivity from anyone, including eventually, the folks who would pay for this perfect world scenerio. Those without the means to do this are offered avenues of help, which even includes the help of the good ole government. Most people who are well off, didn't have the proverbial golden goose let one go in their laps. They worked for it; HARD. Some give to charity, but most pay with their taxes for programs to assist the poor.
Unfortunately, there are a good many of "poor" people are taking advantage of a system that was meant to offer assistance rather than a way of life.
It sounds like you are advocating more government to help level the playing field. It just doesn't work that way. Life is hard, and in this country, if you want something, you must put forth an effort to get it. People seem to find ways to help themselves if they really want to.
I think that the "milk and honey" that you are biblically referring to was meant to be opportunity, not a perpetual hand-out.

[Peanut]

In the United States, everyone is granted the freedom to persue their wants. The above mentioned are not rights and shouldn't be. If they were, then there would be no America in terms of a great nation, or a nation of opportunity.

- Oh spare me your crap! Typical conservative answer. Hiding behind the words of your fore-fathers, so that you can justify why America has an increasing poverty rate (ever since Bush came into power, mind you) and support of his war OF terror.

Life is hard, and in this country, if you want something, you must put forth an effort to get it. People seem to find ways to help themselves if they really want to.

- And if you're an ex-gang banger that wants to change his or her life around by at least getting a job, at least they can feed themselves on the "effort" they put forward? Gimme a break.

[scummybear]

Peanut said:

- Oh spare me your crap! Typical conservative answer. Hiding behind the words of your fore-fathers, so that you can justify why America has an increasing poverty rate (ever since Bush came into power, mind you) and support of his war OF terror.

- And if you're an ex-gang banger that wants to change his or her life around by at least getting a job, at least they can feed themselves on the "effort" they put forward? Gimme a break.

Another canadian waxing philosophical about the U.S. Please! Are you looking for liberal responses on a conservative web site? Spare me YOUR crap!How do the words of the fore-fathers justify why America has an increasing poverty rate? How did you come about that? Stop trying to imply that the world was a wonderful place before George Bush was elected. Have any better ideas, other than hating George Bush?? We've done just fine without you or your opinions. And I think you better check the numbers about the poverty rate, especially as it applies to George Bush.

Your last paragraph makes no sense. I suppose the ex-gangbanger should expect to lay around on his behind and have everything handed to him. A little effort out of line for you?? I guess when he finds out that not everything is free, he uses this to justify his previous behavior, and thus continues with the attitude that the world owes him.
Unbelievable.

[Peanut]

How do the words of the fore-fathers justify why America has an increasing poverty rate?

- THEY dont, YOU do. You hiding behind what they say when anyone asks "well why doesnt everyone have the right to shelter, food and clothing?" - notice how it's not "well why doesnt everyone have the right to a MANSION, 6 COURSE MEALS AND THEIR OWN GAP STORES?" Although i dont know if i would call Gap clothes, clothing, per se, but you know what i mean.

The point being, JB asked why are the basics of life not provided in a country that he believes is the closest thing to "the land of milk and honey". Why do the conservatives act so un-christian, in a land they believe was founded for christians and is still a christian land?

Stop trying to imply that the world was a wonderful place before George Bush was elected.

- Not wonderful, but better, MUCH better.

Your last paragraph makes no sense. I suppose the ex-gangbanger should expect to lay around on his behind and have everything handed to him.

- No, but if you were an ex gang member, how easy do you think it will be for you to get a job. Of course he shouldnt sit on his @$$ all day and collect support from the gov't, but his "persute" of happiness (in this case, becoming self-sufficient, IF he wants to turn his life around) will not feed him, clothe him or shelter him.

I guess when he finds out that not everything is free, he uses this to justify his previous behavior, and thus continues with the attitude that the world owes him.

- I'm not speaking of those that DONT put in the effort, i'm speaking of those that DO. And how its rather stupid to say what a great country america is, cuz he has the CHANCE to get his life on track. NO, america and canada and everywhere else, would be much better if he GETS his life back on track.

[MO]

The kinder, more "Christian" thing to do is to fashion government based on what works in practice, not what sounds kind and benevolent but has failed all over the globe. The poorest of the poor in the US live better than most of the world. Our "poor" are morbidly obese and sit behind color televisions.

Note to JOEBIALEC-
I am weary of you posting the same message on many boards and never bothering to respond to any of your threads. That is what is known as trolling...

[TNRighty]

First of all, everyone out there needs to know what the current definition of "poverty" is. Much of this is taken from an article you can access at www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=2060. I've included some of the highlights, but please go read the entire article.

"The bulk of the "poor" live in material conditions that would have been judged as comfortable or well-off just a few generations ago. Today, the expenditures per person of the lowest income one-fifth (or quintile) of households equal those of the median American household in the early 1970s, after adjusting for inflation."

" Forty-six per cent of all poor households actually own their own homes."

"Seventy-six per cent of poor households have air conditioning."

"The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other cities throughout Europe."

"Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30% 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. Sixty-two percent have cable or satellite TV reception."

"84% of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 3% say they "often" do not have enough to eat."

"There are two main reasons American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and fathers are absent from the home. In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year. That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year, the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week through the year, nearly 75% of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty."

"Still, in a sense, the poor will always be with us. The liberal grievance industry needs an abundant supply of apparent victims to keep its motors running. Without a permanent victim class, liberals cannot survive. Thus, in liberal imagination and rhetoric, the microwave must always be bare."

;D

[TNRighty]

Oh, I forgot. If I hear one more misguided (I'm being kind) liberal criticitze our spending on war when "so many people are starving", I'm gonna puke. Liberals have no problem writing checks to irresponsible, drug-addicted, uneducated, lazy losers. But when it comes to defending our very existence against a group of heathens hell-bent on killing us all, they lock up the wallet and go hide.

Democrats have put their quest for the White House ahead of our own national security. Democrats are elected largely by the people getting the checks from the government. That's why they hate tax cuts. That's why they hate defense spending. That money does not make it back to their subordinates, thus they lose votes.

Only a Democrat could view a tax cut as "government spending." According to that definition, government owns all the wealth and by letting you keep more of what you earn, they are actually "spending" government revenue on your tax cut. Ladies and gentlemen, Liberals think we work for the government.

These people are dangerous, seriously. Their philosophy is dangerous socially and internationally. I don't think they're intentionally trying to ruin America, but their ignorance is powerful. Before we can defeat terrorism, we have to first defeat liberalism here at home. Before we can reclaim freedom and individual rights (and they don't include a right to food, shelter, and medical care) we have to defeat liberalism.

The most powerful individual right (and the one under the greatest fire) is the right to use wisely your power of choice and to deal yourself with the circumstances of those choices. The only role of the government is to protect an environment in which you as an individual are free to do with your life what you want to. The consequences of your choices are yours to bear, not your neighbor. With freedom comes responsibility, and too many people are willing to exchange responsibility and freedom for the security of government-provided comfort.

Last point, Liberals are now trying to expand social programs overseas. Its just a matter of time until Liberals, with the help of the Red Cross and UN, try to spend American taxpayer money on social programs abroad. Keep an eye on this. There are people who want to see it happen

[BOLO]

Re: JOEBIALEK
I just figured he was stupid. I wasn't going to respond to any more of his post. Then I saw the part about trolling. I have seen this before on other forums. He is an idiot in many places. How nice. Spreading idiocy around. If intelligence= poverty. He is broke.

[scummybear]

Material poverty means, in the simplest sense, having a family income below the official poverty income threshold, which was $12,675 for a family of four in 1991. To the average American, however, to say someone is poor implies that he or she is malnourished, inadequately clothed, and lives in inadequate housing. There is little material poverty in the United States in this sense. . . . Today, the fifth of the population with the lowest incomes has a level of economic consumption higher than that of the median American family in 1955. . . . People defined by the U.S. government as "poor" have almost the same average level of consumption of protein, vitamins, and other nutrients as people in the upper middle class. . . . The principal nutrition-related problem facing poor people in the United States today is obesity, not hunger. . . . "poor" American has more housing space and is less likely to be overcrowded than is the average citizen in Western (second italics added) Europe. . . . [N]early 40 percent of the households defined as poor by the government own their own homes.[5]



capo.org/premise/95/august/p950706.html

[Peanut]

Jesus, do you people look at any other sites that are NOT conservative or christian based?

[scummybear]

. . . as opposed to what? I haven't seen anything from you.

[BOLO]

Jesus, do you people look at any other sites that are NOT conservative or christian based?
Posted by: Scummybear

You invoked Jesus. Will you get in trouble for that???
Also. Why?? Do we have to go look at other sites??
Note, I said, have to. I don't want to hear about expanding my horizons. Liberal have nothing to offer other than a collapsing universe. If I need doom and gloom I can catch it on my T.V. on any Liberal News Station. Like ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNBC, NWI, (Al Gore Station)PMSNBC, Ooops, that one snuck in there.
CNN, and oh so many more.
Well any way. Ta.

[TNRighty]

I read liberal newsites all the time. I enter liberal chat rooms all the time. I am very well educated on the liberal mindset, thus my utter disdain. I know the liberal stance and I also know that you cannot debate these people because once confronted with facts, logic, and reason, they result to name-calling, empty claims of racism, and other sorts of hollow rhetoric amounting to nothing. Just like the little punk on the street, they take their ball and go home, not before shouting some insult as they disappear out of sight.