NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, I stole the first part from John Stossel. Maybe someone will steal from me one day.

The point is about how America helps the poor. Without a doubt, America is the most generous (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/are_americans_cheap.html)country in the world. As Mr. Stossel points out, "America is a uniquely charitable country. So when you hear that "Americans are cheap," just remember: We gave $260 billion in charity last year. That's almost $900 for every man, woman, and child." That begs a different question, "Do we need the government to stand in the way of that generosity?"

But who really gives the most. In another study, Stossel discovered that working poor actually give more, as a percentage of their income, to charity than do the rich. But is that all that matters?

Of course not. The rich are rich because they make good decisions. People like Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank founded Home Depot, thus providing an opportunity for self-improvement to a large number of folks. Ditto with Sam Walton, Ted Turner, and Bill Gates. We should leave them to continue with what they do best.

1) America gives the most but not percentage wise (as in if you combine Britain, France and Germany we give more with less people)

2) rich are rich because of luck welcome to capitalism

3) charity lowers crime (though Social security is better IMHO)

4) the rich owe a great deal to the working man

The rich are rich because they make good decisions.
That's easy to say, but what do you mean by good decisions? Let's set aside for the moment that you're ignoring the fact that most wealthy people got there by inheriting it. What are some of these good decisions?

Like Sam Walton being one of the most fiercely anti-union owners in history? That was a good decision for him and his company, perhaps--not so much for the people who worked for him. There's also his company's history of paying workers so little that they have to depend on government assistance for health care--great for the company, not so good for states, who have to pick up the bill.

Bill Gates? Great decision for him to act illegally in crushing competition, since he came to dominate the market so completely that the fines he paid were chump change. Not so great for those other companies or for progress in general.

I could go on, but I'm sure you see where I'm going here. It's a little silly to put labels like "good" or "bad" on these decisions--your perspective on the situation makes a hell of a difference as to how you perceive the quality of those decisions.

You seem to be forgetting the people who got rich by working hard. My parents came from some of the poorest backrounds out there (one from single parent in welsh vallies, other from single parent in birmingham) and they worked their asses off to get rich. So like fuck are they going to give away large chunks of money they have worked for to help the people who cant be bothered to get off their asses and help themselves.
(tho they do give to good causes where the people cant help themselves, like the send a goat thing etc)

i believe the US gives less as a percentage of its GDP than most other 1st world countries.
the actual figure may be the most, but thats because its GDP is by far the highest.

generosity is about how much you give within your means. by this measure the US is not "generous"

however, i do not have any figures for this, only what i remember from my economics degree.

The generosity of private individuals is often as foolishly spent as government aid.

The girls unfurl a banner with a photo of Burmese sex workers being abducted from Thai brothels to illustrate that one of the organizations (the International Justice Mission, or IJM) Bill and Melinda have aligned themselves with is bad news. Khartini Slamah, a Malaysian transsexual activist, elbows past the press and says, "You're dumping your money in the wrong place" upon which Bill and Melinda are whooshed away, all in under two minutes.

To be fair, the Gates have given money to some awesome sex-worker organizations in India, but the IJM is described by Andrew Hunter from the Asian Pacific Network of Sex Workers as "rabidly fundamentalist." He talks about the "rescue and repatriation" tactics of the IJM. After kidnapping sex workers with the help of the local constabulary, they incarcerate them, then force them back to their native countries, one of which is Burma, a military state that a lot of women leave expressly because it's a military state. Sometimes they just plop the women somewhere halfway and they are left with the dangerous and expensive task of returning themselves. This is all done under the auspices of anti-trafficking (oddly, using the same methods as traffickers), though many of these sex workers are not trafficked.

http://www.sexwork.com/Thailand/contents.html

I have spent a lot of time working for rich people in their homes. Some are what I call bottom liners. They make the money. They are smart, efficient and sometimes ruthless people who would succeed in any society. Then there are trophy wives, who are as smart, efficient and successful as their prey: the bottom liners. Then there are the others, the vast majority that inherited their wealth and live in a culture of entitlement. Some of these folks become spoiled brats while others become meek and gentle souls. These others have never tasted adversity.

Suffice it to say, the rich are as homogenous as the poor; i.e. not at all.

You seem to be forgetting the people who got rich by working hard. My parents came from some of the poorest backrounds out there (one from single parent in welsh vallies, other from single parent in birmingham) and they worked their asses off to get rich. So like fuck are they going to give away large chunks of money they have worked for to help the people who cant be bothered to get off their asses and help themselves.
(tho they do give to good causes where the people cant help themselves, like the send a goat thing etc)

kudos to them.

but for every one sucess story about the miricle of capitalism, there are 10 more for whom things have not gone well either due to their own actions or the actions of others. to assume that people are wholly responsible for their destiny and fortune is amazing ignorant. is it not concievable that good people can work very hard and yet not recieve what they deserve for their efforts?

most people are out to better themselves and few truly are too lazy to do so (those that are remain, rightfully, at the bottom of society). in fact, often the poorest in society are the hardest working - to say that rich people should not help those less well off is heartless, greedy, narrow minded and uncompassionate do degrees i cannot understand.

read Hard Work by Polly Toynbee.

That's easy to say, but what do you mean by good decisions? Let's set aside for the moment that you're ignoring the fact that most wealthy people got there by inheriting it. What are some of these good decisions?

Like Sam Walton being one of the most fiercely anti-union owners in history? That was a good decision for him and his company, perhaps--not so much for the people who worked for him. There's also his company's history of paying workers so little that they have to depend on government assistance for health care--great for the company, not so good for states, who have to pick up the bill.

Bill Gates? Great decision for him to act illegally in crushing competition, since he came to dominate the market so completely that the fines he paid were chump change. Not so great for those other companies or for progress in general.

I could go on, but I'm sure you see where I'm going here. It's a little silly to put labels like "good" or "bad" on these decisions--your perspective on the situation makes a hell of a difference as to how you perceive the quality of those decisions.

Let's reduce this to the most basic elements that we can consider. Do you agree that there are people that have created wealth for themselves and in the creation of that wealth, others have benefited?

Let's reduce this to the most basic elements that we can consider. Do you agree that there are people that have created wealth for themselves and in the creation of that wealth, others have benefited?

No, others have seldom benefited. Capitalist "growth" is often merely the passing on of external costs away from businesses to individuals elsewhere. Thus we have a polarization of wealth, and barriers to social justice. The more wealth one makes, the more costs one must pass on to others.

No, others have seldom benefited. Capitalist "growth" is often merely the passing on of external costs away from businesses to individuals elsewhere. Thus we have a polarization of wealth, and barriers to social justice. The more wealth one makes, the more costs one must pass on to others.

Okay, first "seldom" contradicts "no". Hairsplitting aside, you are saying that a successful business that creates wealth for the originator will not create any benefit for the employees that are hired into the business, nor for any supplier of material to that business. Do I understand that correctly?

Let's reduce this to the most basic elements that we can consider. Do you agree that there are people that have created wealth for themselves and in the creation of that wealth, others have benefited?

Define benefited.

Okay, first "seldom" contradicts "no". Hairsplitting aside, you are saying that a successful business that creates wealth for the originator will not create any benefit for the employees that are hired into the business, nor for any supplier of material to that business. Do I understand that correctly?

No, I meant I was disagreeing with you. A business that helps its originator is seldom benefiting its employees. They are the ones who created the value of the business, yet more often than not, they are paid a pittance. The most successful companies are the ones that have found ways to pass the externalities onto others: their employees, consumers, or those who unforutanately take the side effects of industrial processes. So if this business is as successful as you say, it has become this way by cheating its workers at every opportunity, and generally scaring them into submissiveness.

I'm sorry. What's the point of the OP?

That USians are not cheap? Okay.
That the US government is cheap? Okay again.

That the poor are more generous than the rich? Fine.

That industrialists, through their economic projects, indirectly help others, and that such help is more important than the generosity of the poor? Whatever floats your boat.

Define benefited.
benefit...Something that promotes or enhances well-being; In this case, material gain.

No, I meant I was disagreeing with you. A business that helps its originator is seldom benefiting its employees. They are the ones who created the value of the business, yet more often than not, they are paid a pittance. The most successful companies are the ones that have found ways to pass the externalities onto others: their employees, consumers, or those who unforutanately take the side effects of industrial processes. So if this business is as successful as you say, it has become this way by cheating its workers at every opportunity, and generally scaring them into submissiveness.

You forget. Your job is your reward!

benefit...Something that promotes or enhances well-being; In this case, material gain.

Then you must prove that any other job they would have would give less material compensation to prove that the workers in your scenario benefited.

No, I meant I was disagreeing with you. A business that helps its originator is seldom benefiting its employees. They are the ones who created the value of the business, yet more often than not, they are paid a pittance. The most successful companies are the ones that have found ways to pass the externalities onto others: their employees, consumers, or those who unforutanately take the side effects of industrial processes. So if this business is as successful as you say, it has become this way by cheating its workers at every opportunity, and generally scaring them into submissiveness.
What would these individuals be paid if there were no business?

Then you must prove that any other job they would have would give less material compensation to prove that the workers in your scenario benefited.

No, only that no job would provide no material gain.

Businesses are the lifeblood of any prosperous society. Many people decry them as greedy but in the end without them their would be no jobs nor any low cost goods. And if your not satisfied with your pay then you can simply go work elsewhere, you dont own the business or supply all the overhead costs to keep it runningso its not your right to demand how much you think your labor is worth.

You forget. Your job is your reward!

Oh silly me. How blasphemous to want more than mere 9 to 5 drudgery at low pay for the rest of my life. ;)

Let's reduce this to the most basic elements that we can consider. Do you agree that there are people that have created wealth for themselves and in the creation of that wealth, others have benefited?It has happened--rarely, but it has happened. But does that mean that the rare occurrence justifies the majority of times it doesn't? Not to me.

This is a bit odd; John Stossel came to my economics class earlier this year and gave a lecture about this very topic. However, I believe we are missing the point of his argument.

Stossel was talking about charity taking the place of the welfare state as a way to cut government expenditures. The vast majority of Western government spending is the result of transfer payments that they cannot afford through regular taxation, and general welfare, which in turn leads to an immense deficit. Now, if you believe in the Crowding Out principle in macroeconomics, then you know that a deficit causes the general public to stop spending money.

i.e.: 100 Billion in government spending results in 100 billion less in consumer spending.

Stossel argued that if the government would cut this portion of government spending, then the deficit would decrease on its own, rather than continually rising, which in turn creates a consumer friendly environment. He cited Hong Kong as his example of a government in which this system works, almost flawlessly.

Hong Kong (It is regarded by China as a Free Economic Zone and English Law is still what is used) is the fastest growing economy in the world. Why? Because it has little to no government regulations on how a business is started, a minimum wage, or welfare checks.

Now, most people would say this is unfair. Yet, the average citizen in Hong Kong has a higher standard of living than most Western European countries, and just about all of South America. Additionally, Hong Kong has the highest number of Rolls Royces and other luxury cars in the world, all of which are a result of a small bureaucracy, a flat tax, and little government intervention in business.

Stossel researched, and found that those who are living under the average income are being taken care of. Not by the government, but charitable organizations. And they live just as comfortably as any Westerner.

Essentially, the argument was that while Welfare is a good idea to help people, it causes the government to overstretch and cause stagnation in economic development. Stossel pointed out that prior to the Great Depression and the New Deal, even during the Great Depression, charities were the main source of help to those in dire straits, and worked extremely well considering their limited means.

benefit...Something that promotes or enhances well-being; In this case, material gain.

It's a matter of perspective. That fact that I live in a slum due to a low paying job rather then unemployed and on the streets? Sure that is a benefit.

Job creation is not about generosity as you like to imply. The wealthy do not create jobs to help the community. They create them to enhance their own wealth.

What would these individuals be paid if there were no business?

Tell me, is exploitation a "material benefit?" Sweat shop laborers are paid to, but they don't seem to be gaining anything, either.

Businesses are the lifeblood of any prosperous society. Many people decry them as greedy but in the end without them their would be no jobs nor any low cost goods. And if your not satisfied with your pay then you can simply go work elsewhere, you dont own the business or supply all the overhead costs to keep it runningso its not your right to demand how much you think your labor is worth.

And what do you do for a living?

Oh silly me. How blasphemous to want more than mere 9 to 5 drudgery at low pay for the rest of my life. ;)

Then you owe it to yourself to do better. Get more schooling, get more training-get more experience or start your own business.

If you dont make yourself worth something, you probably dont even deserve what you are getting.

You're the only one that owes you anything.

You are silly if you think otherwise.

Then you owe it to yourself to do better. Get more schooling, get more training-get more experience or start your own business.

If you dont make yourself worth something, you probably dont even deserve what you are getting.

You're the only one that owes you anything.

You are silly if you think otherwise.

I was being sarcastic. Note the "wink". Besides that, most people don't have the chance to do better.

I was being sarcastic. Note the "wink". Besides that, most people don't have the chance to do better.

Oh-I thought the "rolls eyes" indicated sarcasm.

And why dont most people have the chance to do better ?

I'm going to school and working a minimum wage job so that I can improve the opportunties for me to get a higher end job. Precisely what those who dont feel their earning enough should do.

Let's reduce this to the most basic elements that we can consider. Do you agree that there are people that have created wealth for themselves and in the creation of that wealth, others have benefited?

It has happened--rarely, but it has happened. But does that mean that the rare occurrence justifies the majority of times it doesn't? Not to me.

But doesn't that happen all the time when a successful business is created? We have opportunity for suppliers to sell to the business and we have opportunity for the employees that run the business. Let's keep Walmart and the like out of the picture for now. Doesn't a business always produce opportunity for more than just the creator?

This is a bit odd; John Stossel came to my economics class earlier this year and gave a lecture about this very topic. However, I believe we are missing the point of his argument.

I like John Stossel, but I'm not trying to make his argument. I think he's quite correct, but I was looking for something more fundamental. There is quite a good deal of opposition to even basic capitalism on this board. I'm not going to change anyone's mind, but that's where all these discussions need to begin.

Oh-I thought the "rolls eyes" indicated sarcasm.

And why dont most people have the chance to do better ?

"Wink" is to allies, "roll-eyes" is to opponents.

Millions of people right here in America are trapped in a cycle of poverty. Thousands of children come from disadvantaged homes and shatter home lives, and have little chance of finding even a decent job without a college education.

I like John Stossel, but I'm not trying to make his argument. I think he's quite correct, but I was looking for something more fundamental. There is quite a good deal of opposition to even basic capitalism on this board. I'm not going to change anyone's mind, but that's where all these discussions need to begin.

As an answer to the question of the OP title: the people who help the poor the most is the working class. Working class struggles and activism is the only way to bring meaningful change to a corrupt system.

Hong Kong (It is regarded by China as a Free Economic Zone and English Law is still what is used) is the fastest growing economy in the world. Why? Because it has little to no government regulations on how a business is started, a minimum wage, or welfare checks.

I'd say it's the lack of government regulations, the high education level, and their excellent and open banking/finance industry that are the main reasons why Hong Kong is so well off. They also have a very efficient tax system that makes it a lot easier to conduct business and investment; they don't really need welfare because most people are quite well off.

Ironically, Hong Kong's Gini index coefficient is actually lower than that of the US despite the lack of a welfare system. However, it is still very high at 43.4; my guess is that it's the blatantly corrupt and inefficient tax structure in the US that produce that additional inequality.

But doesn't that happen all the time when a successful business is created? We have opportunity for suppliers to sell to the business and we have opportunity for the employees that run the business. Let's keep Walmart and the like out of the picture for now. Doesn't a business always produce opportunity for more than just the creator?It has the potential to do so, but it's not a given. Part of the problem with our conversation on this is that you're trying to limit the field, and I'm not willing to do that. It's not an argument, really--more like competing philosophies. I suspect we'll wind up just dancing in circles on this.

2) rich are rich because of luck welcome to capitalism


you know that's crap right?

you know that's crap right?

Only part crap, if you count being born into a wealthy family as luck.

Only part crap, if you count being born into a wealthy family as luck.

staying rich isn't easy, I have known many trust fund kids who went broke.

I'm OK with 'basic capitalism', but the idea that charity can be relied on to provide better public services than an activist government? I don't buy that at all. I really don't see charity guaranteeing a decent standard of healthcare and unemployment benefit to millions of people, setting up thousands of required decent schools for their children, putting in place all the necessary bureaucracy to administer these things etc. etc. I mean, if you were feeling generous you might give away 15% of your income, but would you give away the 36% we've come to expect?

It seems to me this a 'tragedy of the commons' situation; you may be willing to vote for someone who says everyone needs to give away 36% of your income, but if you have to do it individually you'd say "Well, it's is only me after all, it won't make that much difference...how about a trip to the Bahamas?". Actually, thinking about it, the position that this won't happen is a little like utopian leftist anarchism.

staying rich isn't easy, I have known many trust fund kids who went broke.

Yeah, but staying rich is a hell of a lot easier than getting there in the first place, if only because you have built-in educational and occupational advantages over everyone else.

staying rich isn't easy, I have known many trust fund kids who went broke.

Actually it is easy. I know many trust fund kids that don't work anymore.

The ones that I know that went broke; lived a lifestyle more then the trust would provide.....

Actually it is easy. I know many trust fund kids that don't work anymore.

The ones that I know that went broke; lived a lifestyle more then the trust would provide.....

it's not easy, people think that it's all "oh, just live off the money" you have to pay attention just like anyone else to your spending, you have to pay taxes, you need to invest, you need to save, you can't just go around buying anything.

Yeah, but staying rich is a hell of a lot easier than getting there in the first place, if only because you have built-in educational and occupational advantages over everyone else.

yeah, but to say that every rich person got there by "luck" is stupid and it's a lie.

I grew up very very poor, I didn't have food, heat, lights, and ended up homeless for a while. I am on my way to being rich, and yeah it's hard, but I scrimp and save, and do my best to provide for my family while building wealth, there is no "luck" around here.

Its true, the rich have to keep being sucessful to stay that way. Even trust fund types contribute quite a bit to the economy by spending their money. The only way a rich person would be a leech is if they took all their money and went to live in a cave with it.

On another niote, I think us here in the U.S could learn quite a bit from Hong Kongs model.

you know that's crap right?

Actually no it's not.

For example CP/M versus DOS.

It was luck that DOS won out and Bill became a billionaire.....

it's not easy, people think that it's all "oh, just live off the money" you have to pay attention just like anyone else to your spending, you have to pay taxes, you need to invest, you need to save, you can't just go around buying anything.

It's a lot easier to follow the markets and invest when you don't have to do the 9-5 routine.

I'm going to school and working a minimum wage job so that I can improve the opportunties for me to get a higher end job. Precisely what those who dont feel their earning enough should do.

So you are single and living with your parents?

Actually no it's not.

For example CP/M versus DOS.

It was luck that DOS won out and Bill became a billionaire.....

no, it wasn't, one of them did a better job of selling their product than the other.



It's a lot easier to follow the markets and invest when you don't have to do the 9-5 routine.

It's a lot easier for me to homeschool since I work at home, does that make me "lucky"?

no, it wasn't, one of them did a better job of selling their product than the other.


:D Not that simple. Do you even know what CP/M was?


It's a lot easier for me to homeschool since I work at home, does that make me "lucky"?

You are married no?

Only part crap, if you count being born into a wealthy family as luck.

Bingo! Went to school with many of them!

:D Not that simple. Do you even know what CP/M was?

yes, I have even used it.



You are married no?

yes, but I could work at home even if I were not.

yes, I have even used it.
:eek: you are that old? :p

yes, but I could work at home even if I were not.

You are lucky. Not many families have that option.

What state are you in again?

:eek: you are that old? :p
no, my elementary school had old computers. ;)



You are lucky. Not many families have that option.

What state are you in again?

we have that option because I choose to live with less than most others would consider. We live on less than 50% of our income and the portion we live on is only 10% more than the poverty level here. I choose to be careful with our spending and save like crazy.

no, my elementary school had old computers. ;)

we have that option because I choose to live with less than most others would consider. We live on less than 50% of our income and the portion we live on is only 10% more than the poverty level here. I choose to be careful with our spending and save like crazy.

Ahhh an Oakie :p

Much easier to do that there. Property tax here would wipe you out. Not to mention the yearly COL increase.

We have had this talk before. Not everybody is out there buying a new car every year. Running cable and DSL, eating out every day......

Ahhh an Oakie :p

Much easier to do that there. Property tax here would wipe you out. Not to mention the yearly COL increase.

We have had this talk before. Not everybody is out there buying a new car every year. Running cable and DSL, eating out every day......

we did the same in Arizona, the COL was way different there, when we could get a 2 bedroom apartment here for $400 it was $1500 there, even in a not so great neighborhood.

I just got a night job and worked while hubby was home.

So you are single and living with your parents?

No, I live on campus in the dorms. And yes, my parents do give me some money but not all that much as their jobs arent what could be considered upper class. You do know that its not impossible to go to college coming from a lower middle class family right?

we did the same in Arizona, the COL was way different there, when we could get a 2 bedroom apartment here for $400 it was $1500 there, even in a not so great neighborhood.

I just got a night job and worked while hubby was home.

Still cheaper then here.

Now could you do all that without your husband?

There are simply cases of good luck and bad luck.

Have you ever had serious medical condition with one of your children? Do you think you could cover a major medical crises?

I know one family in that situation. They were doing good, and bam, medical costs basically eliminated their way of life.

My neighbor has four kids and one with Cerebral Palsy. The live well below their means and are probably not going to be rich anytime soon. Both have blue collar jobs.....

No, I live on campus in the dorms. And yes, my parents do give me some money but not all that much as their jobs arent what could be considered upper class. You do know that its not impossible to go to college coming from a lower middle class family right?

You miss the point kiddo. It's far easier to "improve" your position when you have little or no responsibilities.

I was from the lower middle class and had to work full time for my education.

But thats the thing you dont understand, I do work alot- Both in school and outside. So dont tell me that I dont understand the merit of working. It just goes to illustrate my point, that hard work and ambition can take you nearly anywhere.

Still cheaper then here.
which is one of the reasons we stay here.

Now could you do all that without your husband?
probably, but I wouldn't want to. are you trying to say that my marriage is "luck"

There are simply cases of good luck and bad luck.
no there aren't.

Have you ever had serious medical condition with one of your children? Do you think you could cover a major medical crises?
like when my youngest was in the hospital for over a month and required 3 surgeries and almost died and ended up on tube feeding for a few weeks, and we owed the hospital over $100,000 or like my husband's medicine that costs us over $1,000 a month with insurance?

I know one family in that situation. They were doing good, and bam, medical costs basically eliminated their way of life.

My neighbor has four kids and one with Cerebral Palsy. The live well below their means and are probably not going to be rich anytime soon. Both have blue collar jobs.....

that's really sad. I know many families in that situation.

But thats the thing you dont understand, I do work alot- Both in school and outside. So dont tell me that I dont understand the merit of working. It just goes to illustrate my point, that hard work and ambition can take you nearly anywhere.

I do have to apologize. Re-reading your earlier post minimum wage job registered as a part-time job.

But the point remains, a single person has it easier. Could you do it with a child? A family?

I do have to apologize. Re-reading your earlier post minimum wage job registered as a part-time job.

But the point remains, a single person has it easier. Could you do it with a child? A family?

have you ever heard the phrase 'we do what needs to be done' ?

which is one of the reasons we stay here.


probably, but I wouldn't want to. are you trying to say that my marriage is "luck"

No. Just saying it's easier to have support.

no there aren't.
Sure there is. :D

like when my youngest was in the hospital for over a month and required 3 surgeries and almost died and ended up on tube feeding for a few weeks, and we owed the hospital over $100,000 or like my husband's medicine that costs us over $1,000 a month with insurance?

Ah! So you have perspective. I mention it because an old co-worker had a baby that required many surgeries to the point the insurance company agreed to raise coverage for everybody in the company but him. His costs were over a million.

A $1000 a month? What they hell is he taking? I thought $600 a month was bad for my gran.....

that's really sad. I know many families in that situation.

You know I forgot what the hell we were arguing about......

have you ever heard the phrase 'we do what needs to be done' ?

:rolleyes: Right Smunkee, we are all just screw off complainers.

The majority of American charity goes towards religious organisations. The huge megachurches that exist only in America are the cause of this statistical disparity, take them away (which we should, as charity does not include the funding of hate-filled lying millionaires) and America is left with charity figures a lot like the rest of the world.

No. Just saying it's easier to have support.
of course it is.


Ah! So you have perspective. I mention it because an old co-worker had a baby that required many surgeries to the point the insurance company agreed to raise coverage for everybody in the company but him. His costs were over a million.
I have tons of perspective, sleeping here in my warm house full of food, I still remember what it was like living in my car with none in the winter.

A $1000 a month? What they hell is he taking? I thought $600 a month was bad for my gran.....
anti-cancer meds, that are experimental with his disease so insurance won't cover them.



You know I forgot what the hell we were arguing about......
you said that luck plays into being rich and that I am "lucky" to have my life, when the truth is I worked damn hard for it (and still do)
:rolleyes: Right Smunkee, we are all just screw off complainers.

I am sorry, after what I have been through when I hear people say "rich people are only rich because they are lucky" or "I can't do that because I have bad luck"

what I hear is complaining.

of course it is.

I have tons of perspective, sleeping here in my warm house full of food, I still remember what it was like living in my car with none in the winter.

Never been homeless. Damn close as a kid though. I remember going to school with little to eat.

anti-cancer meds, that are experimental with his disease so insurance won't cover them.


Sorry to hear that. What type of cancer?

you said that luck plays into being rich and that I am "lucky" to have my life, when the truth is I worked damn hard for it (and still do)

In some cases luck is a factor. I never meant all of it was luck.

I am sorry, after what I have been through when I hear people say "rich people are only rich because they are lucky" or "I can't do that because I have bad luck"

what I hear is complaining.

No worries. Sometime that judgmental aspect flows through your posts. ;)

Wealthy in Oklahoma? So does that mean you own the trailer park you live in? :p

Never been homeless. Damn close as a kid though. I remember going to school with little to eat.
I remember times at school when I only had the food there to eat. I wasn't homeless until I was 15 though.



Sorry to hear that. What type of cancer?
oh, he doesn't have cancer, he has an auto-immune disorder that apparently responds to these meds, but it's not an "FDA approved" treatment.


In some cases luck is a factor. I never meant all of it was luck.
I don't believe in luck, either everything happens for a reason or random things happen to random people, or a mix of the two, nobody has "bad luck" like it's a stamp on their head.



No worries. Sometime that judgmental aspect flows through your posts. ;)
it flows through my entire life, just think how much I annoy my kids.



Wealthy in Oklahoma? So does that mean you own the trailer park you live in? :p

only idiots live in trailer parks here, one windy day and your house goes flying down the freeway. ;)

I am sorry, after what I have been through when I hear people say "rich people are only rich because they are lucky" or "I can't do that because I have bad luck"

{b]what I hear is complaining.[/b]

Just to add. It goes both ways. My mom went the social assitence route because she thought that was the best course of action. 2 Children no skills.

It always chaffs my hide to hear people complain welfare people as lowlife scum that never amount to anything and it's a complete waste of time to have assistance programs.....

I guess freedom of speech also means freedom to bitch! :D

Just to add. It goes both ways. My mom went the social assitence route because she thought that was the best course of action. 2 Children no skills.

It always chaffs my hide to hear people complain welfare people as lowlife scum that never amount to anything and it's a complete waste of time to have assistance programs.....

I guess freedom of speech also means freedom to bitch! :D

I have no problem with TANF. If you get into a bind and you need help, by all means get some anywhere you can.

I remember times at school when I only had the food there to eat. I wasn't homeless until I was 15 though.


Scary. We have much in common.

oh, he doesn't have cancer, he has an auto-immune disorder that apparently responds to these meds, but it's not an "FDA approved" treatment.


Still sorry to hear that.

I had a much smaller similar problem with insurance. I have major allergies. Test positive for everything on the grid. One brand of pills worked great. They changed coverage for an over the counter brand that did nothing. Luckily my Doc has a personal hatred of Insurance companies and loves to give them battle. After about 3 months I got it back.

Not the same as yours....

I don't believe in luck, either everything happens for a reason or random things happen to random people, or a mix of the two, nobody has "bad luck" like it's a stamp on their head.

:D I could introduce you to somebody that I believe was the role model for bad luck shelprock! Birds have a grudge against him. He has been nailed countless times. He parks his car at a friends house in a quiet neighborhood and a drunk demolishes it. He gets a temp and it's stolen.....

it flows through my entire life, just think how much I annoy my kids.


I thought that was genetic to all mothers! :p

only idiots live in trailer parks here, one windy day and your house goes flying down the freeway. ;)

What was the line in Cars? "I'm happier than a Tornado in a trailer park!"

How many tornado's have you seen?

Okay, I stole the first part from John Stossel. Maybe someone will steal from me one day.

The point is about how America helps the poor. Without a doubt, America is the most generous (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/are_americans_cheap.html)country in the world. As Mr. Stossel points out, "America is a uniquely charitable country. So when you hear that "Americans are cheap," just remember: We gave $260 billion in charity last year. That's almost $900 for every man, woman, and child." That begs a different question, "Do we need the government to stand in the way of that generosity?"

But who really gives the most. In another study, Stossel discovered that working poor actually give more, as a percentage of their income, to charity than do the rich. But is that all that matters?

Of course not. The rich are rich because they make good decisions. People like Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank founded Home Depot, thus providing an opportunity for self-improvement to a large number of folks. Ditto with Sam Walton, Ted Turner, and Bill Gates. We should leave them to continue with what they do best.

The US gives 13c/day/person in government aid.
American’s private giving is another 5c/day.
Norway gives $1.02/day/person in public aid and 24c/day/person in private aid.

A large proportion of the charitable donations include remittance - that is money sent by foreign nationals (including illegal immigrants) to their families back in their own countries.
For example, out of the $71 Billion given privately by US citizens in 2004, $47 Billion was personal remittance to developing countries. Of that, $45 Billion went to Latin American countries.
No figures are available as to whether this is charitable donations or money sent back to families. But I think we can safely assume a significant proportion would have been remittance.


Incidently, the same year that Bill Gates gave 100 million to AIDs prevention, he also donated $400 million to 'encouraging' use of microsoft platforms in the developing world instead of other platforms, like free open-source Linux.

http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp

Scary. We have much in common.
I know, you should see how much I have in common with Sinuhue and we turned out so different, it's scary.





:D I could introduce you to somebody that I believe was the role model for bad luck shelprock! Birds have a grudge against him. He has been nailed countless times. He parks his car at a friends house in a quiet neighborhood and a drunk demolishes it. He gets a temp and it's stolen.....
birds hate me, pigeons dive bomb me, I have witnesses.

I had a 79 Camaro for 4 days, I spent $1200 on it, all I had saved, the first 3 days I didn't have insurance so I didn't drive it, the 4th day I took it downtown and parked parallel to the curb, a drunk driver side-swiped the whole row of cars, and bent the frame, my insurance said it was totaled and wouldn't pay enough for me to repair it and I couldn't afford to get another. :(



How many tornado's have you seen?
Only actually seen 3, lived through 7, but the other 4 I was way into shelter before we could see them. My house got blown away twice, lost everything, thank God for the Red Cross. ;)

Okay, I stole the first part from John Stossel. Maybe someone will steal from me one day.

The point is about how America helps the poor. Without a doubt, America is the most generous (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/are_americans_cheap.html)country in the world. As Mr. Stossel points out, "America is a uniquely charitable country. So when you hear that "Americans are cheap," just remember: We gave $260 billion in charity last year. That's almost $900 for every man, woman, and child." That begs a different question, "Do we need the government to stand in the way of that generosity?"

But who really gives the most. In another study, Stossel discovered that working poor actually give more, as a percentage of their income, to charity than do the rich. But is that all that matters?

Of course not. The rich are rich because they make good decisions. People like Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank founded Home Depot, thus providing an opportunity for self-improvement to a large number of folks. Ditto with Sam Walton, Ted Turner, and Bill Gates. We should leave them to continue with what they do best.You are so misguided it isn't even funny anymore.

I'd say it's the lack of government regulations, the high education level, and their excellent and open banking/finance industry that are the main reasons why Hong Kong is so well off. They also have a very efficient tax system that makes it a lot easier to conduct business and investment; they don't really need welfare because most people are quite well off.

Ironically, Hong Kong's Gini index coefficient is actually lower than that of the US despite the lack of a welfare system. However, it is still very high at 43.4; my guess is that it's the blatantly corrupt and inefficient tax structure in the US that produce that additional inequality.
Most people in HK are not well off, and they do in fact have a welfare system.
They also have what you can only describe as indentured serfs working for next-to-nothing (domestic helpers), and countless illegals (estimates range up to 3 million - almost half the official population!) who work for next to nothing which helps drive the economy.

Main reason HK is well-off is that it's the busiest port in China. Nearly 1/2 of Chinese exports flow thru HK's ports. Shanghai is catching up fast and will overtake HK soon. Which could well be bad news for HK.

It has the potential to do so, but it's not a given. Part of the problem with our conversation on this is that you're trying to limit the field, and I'm not willing to do that. It's not an argument, really--more like competing philosophies. I suspect we'll wind up just dancing in circles on this.
Probably so, it seems like there's no way to discuss the poor, or even commerce, without bringing a bunch of extra baggage along. I was trying to find some common ground where it was agreed that private commerce was a good thing.

You know, if I was the guy that figured out peanut butter and chocolate tasted good together, packaged, and sold it, I'd do well. If I was the guy that sold the peanut butter, I'd do well, same with the chocolate guy. Sure, I built my fortune on the shoulders of others, but they aren't suffering because of it.

Any successful business is like that. Home Depot did wonders for a couple of guys fired after a corporate takeover. It also did wonders for John Deere, Ryobi Tools, Rigid Tools and so on. Not to mention the thousands of associates that are paid to sell the merchandise, or the little mom and pop operations that get the local service contracts.

If the government controlled commerce, which is where I think you're going, we would still be buying lumber at the lumber yard, at government controlled prices from workers getting government controlled wages, buying nails and screws from the hardware store under the same conditions, and none of us would earn enough to buy a John Deere riding lawnmower. Talk about taking advantage of labor...

Gotta go. It's a Friday and I try to wrap things up so I don't have the same old problems facing me on Monday.

You are so misguided it isn't even funny anymore.
It's unfortunate you don't see the advantages of either absolute dollars given to charity, or of how successful commerce makes a lot of charity unnecessary.

Probably so, it seems like there's no way to discuss the poor, or even commerce, without bringing a bunch of extra baggage along. I was trying to find some common ground where it was agreed that private commerce was a good thing.

You know, if I was the guy that figured out peanut butter and chocolate tasted good together, packaged, and sold it, I'd do well. If I was the guy that sold the peanut butter, I'd do well, same with the chocolate guy. Sure, I built my fortune on the shoulders of others, but they aren't suffering because of it.

Any successful business is like that. Home Depot did wonders for a couple of guys fired after a corporate takeover. It also did wonders for John Deere, Ryobi Tools, Rigid Tools and so on. Not to mention the thousands of associates that are paid to sell the merchandise, or the little mom and pop operations that get the local service contracts.

If the government controlled commerce, which is where I think you're going, we would still be buying lumber at the lumber yard, at government controlled prices from workers getting government controlled wages, buying nails and screws from the hardware store under the same conditions, and none of us would earn enough to buy a John Deere riding lawnmower. Talk about taking advantage of labor...

Gotta go. It's a Friday and I try to wrap things up so I don't have the same old problems facing me on Monday.
Here's the thing: private commerce can be a good thing, but it's very dependent on the motives of the person or persons running the company. But you can't depend solely on the good will of the people running the company, because individuals are often selfish pieces of shit who'd just as soon pollute the hell out of the local area rather than spend the extra money cleaning up after themselves, which is where government comes in as a regulatory agency.

I'm no communist--I'm in favor of a strongly regulated capitalism with a good social safety net for the working class, which includes Social Security and universal health care. There's a lot of things that the open market does well--regulating itself isn't one of them. Looking after working class people isn't one of their strong suits either, and as someone who's been in that income level all my life, I have a particular itch for that, you might say.

Given a choice between dealing with an individual owner of a business and a corporation, I'll take the individual owner every time, because there's a better chance at negotiating with the individual. Corporations are machines whose first obligation, under law, is making profits--everything else comes second. And I have a problem with that, because it gets rid of the human element. Most of the time when you see me railing about something economic, it's going to be about the way corporations are screwing someone or something over again. If I could snap my fingers and make one economic reform, it would be to remove legal personhood from corporations, and turn them back into liability-limiting machines.

Okay, I stole the first part from John Stossel. Maybe someone will steal from me one day.

The point is about how America helps the poor. Without a doubt, America is the most generous (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/are_americans_cheap.html)country in the world. As Mr. Stossel points out, "America is a uniquely charitable country. So when you hear that "Americans are cheap," just remember: We gave $260 billion in charity last year. That's almost $900 for every man, woman, and child." That begs a different question, "Do we need the government to stand in the way of that generosity?"

But who really gives the most. In another study, Stossel discovered that working poor actually give more, as a percentage of their income, to charity than do the rich. But is that all that matters?

Of course not. The rich are rich because they make good decisions. People like Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank founded Home Depot, thus providing an opportunity for self-improvement to a large number of folks. Ditto with Sam Walton, Ted Turner, and Bill Gates. We should leave them to continue with what they do best.
What's the point of this?

I grew up very very poor, I didn't have food, heat, lights, and ended up homeless for a while.
You mean you would not have preferred if food, heat, lights, and shelter were provided as your rights?

Let's reduce this to the most basic elements that we can consider. Do you agree that there are people that have created wealth for themselves and in the creation of that wealth, others have benefited?
Yes.

Let's reduce this to the most basic elements that we can consider. Do you agree that there are people who have created wealth for themselves, and in the creation of that wealth, others have been disadvantaged.

See what I have done there. I have shown that your proposition achieves nothing. It shows nothing.

This is what you are trying to do, by getting someone to answer your question. There is one person who created wealth and helped others, therefore all wealth creation is good.

I have turned it around. A man created personal wealth by using slave labour. Therefore all wealth creation is bad. I own you.

Please stop using such poor debating tactics. It is tedious.

I think that if more people considered economic policies in terms of helping people less fortunate than themselves, the world would be better place.

I think that if more people considered economic policies in terms of helping people less fortunate than themselves, the world would be better place.

I believe our Achillean friend is trying to argue that capitalism, an economic policy that focuses on helping yourself, is more effective than other economic systems for helping people less fortunate than others.

Yes, I also was reminded of Ayn Rand.

I believe our Achillean friend is trying to argue that capitalism, an economic policy that focuses on helping yourself, is more effective than other economic systems for helping people less fortunate than others.
Unless he favours some regulation, he's delusional.

2) rich are rich because of luck welcome to capitalism
Exactly. If Bill Gates hadn't accidentally tripped and found that DOS prgram stuck in his foot he'd be as poor as anyone today.

I do have to apologize. Re-reading your earlier post minimum wage job registered as a part-time job.

But the point remains, a single person has it easier. Could you do it with a child? A family?

No I couldnt, but then again its the individuals choice to have a family. I dont plan of even thinking about one until I can support one. If you cant afford kids then dont have them. Sounds cruel but you do have a choice in the matter.

No I couldnt, but then again its the individuals choice to have a family. I dont plan of even thinking about one until I can support one. If you cant afford kids then dont have them. Sounds cruel but you do have a choice in the matter.
As long as women can still get abortions, that is. All this is interrelated, after all.

Of course I support a womans choice to get an abortion, I am a libertarian after all.

But thats the thing you dont understand, I do work alot- Both in school and outside. So dont tell me that I dont understand the merit of working. It just goes to illustrate my point, that hard work and ambition can take you nearly anywhere.Where has your hard work and ambition gotten you so far?

I think that in general, americans like to be known for being so extremely generous. We want other countries to view us as the big brother, swoop in a help out. However, the point is, we want it to be known so much, advertisting it takes over the actual generosity. For example, I cannot recall the company (my sociology class is far gone) but they gave some portion of money to AIDs, but then advertisted and told the US about it for double what they gave. I think it is funny sort of. Also, I find it funny how the CEO of Gap makes more in a day or two than the average worker producing the clothes does in a year. But don't forget the gap commerical (some hip hop artist singing about peace love blah blah MONEY)

Where has your hard work and ambition gotten you so far?

It's taken me from a farm in Ohio, to a responsible engineering management position in a satellite communications company. And I'm not that ambitious, or I would have built my own company by now.

As long as women can still get abortions, that is. All this is interrelated, after all.

All religious morality aside, there is another level where both men and women can choose not to have children. I'm talking contraception, not abstention. That is really the best place to prevent any unplanned children.

Exactly. If Bill Gates hadn't accidentally tripped and found that DOS prgram stuck in his foot he'd be as poor as anyone today.
Boy, it's hard to tell if you're being sarcastic. 'Cause if you aren't we could always claim that Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were just a couple lucky guys, too. Not to mention how lucky Bernie Marcus was to have Home Depot grow up and consume him.

You must have been laying it on, right?

Exactly. If Bill Gates hadn't accidentally tripped and found that DOS prgram stuck in his foot he'd be as poor as anyone today.
Bill Gates bought DOS; he didn't invent it. (or Q-DOS as it was originally known)