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.

[thomas]

oh no, not him again! >:(

[Dante]

Just what I was thinking...

[nemafakei]

It has outdone itself this time in its discontinuity between illustrative references and its point.

Although it does begin with a clearer definition of its terms of reference than has done before.

[Edric O]

In all fairness, however, he does make a very good point. The US government already has more than enough money to guarantee the four basic needs of every citizen. Just with the money it spent on the Iraq war so far, it could have completely eradicated homelessness by giving every single homeless person a decent house. Consider the following numbers: The war in Iraq has costed over 120,000,000,000 (120 billion) dollars so far. By the highest estimates, there are 2,500,000 (two and a half million) homeless people in the USA. This means that 48,000 dollars could have been used for each homeless person. Just by not going to war with Iraq. And keep in mind that the war hasn't ended yet, and there are probably a lot less homeless people than that 2.5 million figure, so the money per homeless person would most likely be a lot more than my estimated 48,000.

The cost of completely eradicating all forms of poverty in the USA and guaranteeing food, clothing, shelter and medical care to every American would be no greater than the cost of two or three military interventions like the ones in recent years. So if the money can be found for the War on Terror, why can't it also be found for the War on Poverty?

The amazing thing is that you don't even need to raise taxes. At the current level of taxation, all you need to do is cut some of the absurd and unjustified defense spending. Transfer some of that money into the secret services (since assasinating terrorists is far more efficient than blasting away whole countries) and use the rest to guarantee the basic needs of every American. This is perfectly reasonable and entirely feasible, and it seems the only reason the US government doesn't do it is because it doesn't want to.

[Acriku]

In all fairness, however, he does make a very good point. The US government already has more than enough money to guarantee the four basic needs of every citizen. Just with the money it spent on the Iraq war so far, it could have completely eradicated homelessness by giving every single homeless person a decent house. Consider the following numbers: The war in Iraq has costed over 120,000,000,000 (120 billion) dollars so far. By the highest estimates, there are 2,500,000 (two and a half million) homeless people in the USA. This means that 48,000 dollars could have been used for each homeless person. Just by not going to war with Iraq. And keep in mind that the war hasn't ended yet, and there are probably a lot less homeless people than that 2.5 million figure, so the money per homeless person would most likely be a lot more than my estimated 48,000.

You can play with numbers all you want, but the Congress would never have dished out that much money that it did for the Iraq campaign to "cure homelessness." Then there's the impracticality of actually giving it to the homeless. Questions will also be raised in Congress and in the public whether or not we should be focusing on this in the first place, instead of focusing on other more pressing matters that the Congress sees fit.

[Edric O]

My point exactly:

This is perfectly reasonable and entirely feasible, and it seems the only reason the US government doesn't do it is because it doesn't want to.

Congress COULD easily solve the problem of homelessness (and pretty much all other poverty-related issues) - even without increasing taxes - but, for one reason or another, it doesn't WANT to.

[danielsh]

It seems like the goal of solving problems is fundamentally incompatible with our government.

[Dunenewt]

Can't we just ban that guy?

[lowzeewee]

Can't we just ban that guy?

Yeah he's going from forum to forum trolling and posting his college political study assignment here for us to give him more ideas and do his homework for him.

[GUNWOUNDS]

haha he gets us to do his homework hehe. funny stuff.

[Dunenewt]

Just search for his name on the internet lol.

[lowzeewee]

Just search for his name on the internet lol.

Yeah that's what I did. He has been banned on one forum and his title there is 'Banned troll'.

[Dunenewt]

JOEBIALEK...

Dear:

[_] Clueless n00b (Bonjour)

[_] Lamer

[_] Flamer

[_] Pervert

[_] Sexist

[_] Spammer

[_] Racist

[_] Idiot

[_] Dumbass

[X] Troller

[_] "Expert"

[_] Wannabe

[_] Waste of Life

[_] Other:

[_] All of the above

You are being flamed because:

[_] You made an "Off-Topic" post.

[_] You obviously don't know anything about the topic at hand.

[X] You started a pointless thread.

[_] You bumped a pointless thread.

[_] Your post contained nothing but crap.

[_] You can't spell more than 3 words right.

[_] Your awful markup made the post unreadable.

[_] You made a useless assumption.

[_] You posted ALL IN CAPS FOR NO APPARENT REASON.

[_] YoU tYpEd SoMeThInG lAmE lIkE tHiS.

[_] You say you're "1337".

[_] You posted a topic that's been posted 23 times already.

[_] You're posting something illegal and will be banned anyway.

[_] You're asking for something illegal.

To repent, you must:

[_] Refrain from posting until you have a vague idea what you're doing.

[_] Stab yourself in the eye with a pen.

[X] Give up your internet account.

[_] Eat paint chips for the next 6 months.

[_] Tell your mommy to up your medication.

[_] Jump into a bathtub with a toaster (plugged in of course!).

[_] Actually post something relevant.

[_] Read and memorize the rules.

[X] Leave these boards forever.

[_] Print your home phone number.

[X] Simply shut up.

In Closing, I'd Like to Say:

[_] Blow me

[_] Get a life

[_] Never post again

[_] I pity your dog

[_] Your IQ must be 7

[_] Take your rejection somewhere else

[_] STHU & GTHO

[_] Learn to post

[X] Go jump into some industrial equipment

[_] All of the above

[Andrew]

Can't we just ban that guy?

I Concur. About every month he comes up with something, and only posts a new subject. A PRP spammist I say!

Who here seconds the movement?

[nemafakei]

On some boards, it's possible to remove the ability to start topics: Could we do this to him?

[TMA_1]

hey, some of his topics are relavent. Now if he didnt write them than I would agree with you guys, but it seems that me might be the author. If that is the case than if he brings up good posts, than why not let him? if the information is accurate, than it is good info no matter what it may be.

[Andrew]

Becuase he simply goes to every internet board he can think of and copy/pastes his short story.

http://www.synaptic.bc.ca/Contact/viewtopic.php?t=628&sid=3a52b9a8707dfe50184d1e93bdf42281

http://forums.polkonline.com/cgi-bin/bb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=000198

http://www.patpack.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=59805&Main=59788

http://www.webmaster-talk.com/showthread.php?t=11158

http://www.somegoodstuff.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1202

He went to a physics forum:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=33280

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Number=292731808

And there is no point of me copying and pasting every board, because there are hundreds.

http://www.google.ca/search?num=100&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=JOEBIALEK+poverty&btnG=Search&meta=

Does he even reply to his own threads? (maybe once, but I doubt it.)

He is like spam you get in your inbox, sends it to as many people as possible, whether or not they want to see it.

A simple ban would solve things.

[Dunenewt]

Hmm. So I bet you are a liberal Democrat by the post you have just left. Lets go on with the idea that we are a honey rich nation as you so state we are. How has this great nation been able to be so prosperous? How it is that so many as you state are able to relish in the riches this nation has to offer? Let me sum it up for you. It is Freedom, capitalism and self reliance.

These basic rights in which I may state are in our constitution were given to anyone and everyone who wishes to benefit from them.

Your argument or idea in which everyone is entitled to be taken care of for their basic needs is ignorant of the founding fathers ideas of truth liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I have yet to read anywhere in these rights that on the backs of working men, individuals as myself who choose to use the rights afforded me by these valiant men who suffered so much more than you or me to give us the opportunity to debate this issue.

Everyone has the right to make what he/she sees with their lives. If they choose to deter from that regardless of the way he/she may have been raised, treated, etc. that is ones choice. We all have a sense of morality. We currently have programs available through any local, state, federal agency to help individuals get through these horrible events in which may hinder them from being prosperous. Yet this is ones choice and one must choose to follow the correct path for themselves.

Your way of thinking as I have interpreted in your post is I; a citizen should be forced to give monetary compensation to individuals who for reasons beyond my control were traumatized in some fashion or another. And this is where your argument is wrong. The government should never impose or force me to give, or yield any of my wages, money, or assets I have worked so hard for to programs, people, etc. in which I may or may not feel need of my money. This is extortion in the common sense term. Yet the politically correct left wings of society would have us believe by taking my money to help underprivileged people will in some way correct the underlying issue at hand. And this my friend is and has been proven to be incorrect.

To correct the underlying problem of poverty, mental illness, or any obstacle in the way in which may hinder any citizen

[danielsh]

There's one reply to this thread on another board.

Do you have a URI?

[GUNWOUNDS]

that guy dunenewt quoted pretty much sums up how it is.... a bit wordy but he covers the points.

[lowzeewee]

It's useless if he makes good points in a thread but doesn't reply to people's thoughts and comments. BAN HIM.

[Edric O]

The guy Dunenewt quoted is an imbecile. Here is a simple refutation of his post:

Hmm. So I bet you are a liberal Democrat by the post you have just left.

No, he's just a person with a little common sense. If a man has more money than he could ever spend in his life, and another man is starving next to him, is it wrong to make the first man give up $50 (out of the millions he owns) to buy the second man a meal?

How it is that so many as you state are able to relish in the riches this nation has to offer?

The point is that most people ARE NOT able to relish in the riches that America has to offer. In fact, over 20% of those riches are in the hands of the wealthiest 1% of Americans, and 40% of them are in the hands of the wealthiest 8% of Americans.

No amount of rhethoric can justify such an absurdly unequal distribution of wealth. It is painfully obvious that being rich does not come from hard work. If work was involved, then you could expect SOME degree of inequality, but this is ridiculous:

Lets go on with the idea that we are a honey rich nation as you so state we are.

America is the richest nation in the world, yet it is far behind many other nations in terms of the standards of living of the average man. That says a lot.

It is Freedom, capitalism and self reliance.

You talk of freedom? A starving man is not free. A man who suffers from disease because he couldn't afford to pay for healthcare is not free. A dead man is not free.

Capitalism means "freedom" alright... freedom for the rich. Freedom for those who can afford it.

You talk of self reliance? Have you looked out the window recently? We are living in the most complex social system in human history! If you want "self reliance", buy a farm and grow your own food. In the modern world, we all depend on each other. This is the price we must pay for technological advancement. You will find "self reliance" in rural Africa, not in 21st century America.

Your argument or idea in which everyone is entitled to be taken care of for their basic needs is ignorant of the founding fathers ideas of truth liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

So poverty is a necessary part of "liberty and the pursuit of happiness"? You haven't given this a lot of thought, have you?

I have yet to read anywhere in these rights that on the backs of working men...

The only people living on the backs of working men are the rich.

What you don't seem to understand is that most of the poor you hate so much are your fellow working men, who just happened to be a little more unlucky than you. You have fallen for the oldest trick in the book: Divide and Conquer. By making you hate the unemployed for the tiny scraps they receive, the capitalist oligarchy is diverting your attention from the immense amounts of money they are stealing from you.

To make an analogy, you are complaining about the hungry beggar who asks for $5 of your money while ignoring the hacker who steals $5000 from your credit card.

To correct the underlying problem of poverty, mental illness, or any obstacle in the way in which may hinder any citizen

[Wolf]

I would have to say that I'm in about 90% agreement with Edric. The other 10% is explained below... and exists mainly because I can't let Edric win that easily ;).

"Keep in mind that if it is morally wrong to give people money that they have not earned, then capitalism itself is immoral."

This last line seems to make a great deal of sense. But, I must wonder what the definition then is of "earned." An executive that enables thousands to sell their goods in the first place deserves nothing because he made none of the goods that he made it possible to sell? Or does he only deserve a small amount of wealth for doing this small deed? Or, does he deserve wealth that represents the amount of wealth he generated for his workers? (Now, to defend that, let us assume that if the executive had not intervened, only some of the workers would have sold their goods, and at varying prices.)

The bottom line is that, in communism, I do not understand how the distribution of wealth can be achieved. And, the fact that monetary-based economics are abandoned in utopian communism further confuses this basic point. I apologize, for you must have explained it countless times, but I find the phrase "From each according to ability, to each according to need" somewhat... insufficient. Does this mean that people only take what they need? In which case, it is likely that there will be more wealth than there are needs. What about the rest? Does it reside in some government warehouse (this phrase is further confused by the fact that government doesn't exist either, so, let's just say "warehouse")? Or, what if there isn't enough wealth to meet the needs of the people? And will the people themselves carry out all this redistribution without governments to organize it? Perhaps I am looking for some concrete, step-by-step plan. I know it's asking for a lot, and there is no pre-existing precedent for it. So... feel free just to theorize and throw random ideas on the wall. I'll be nice, I swear!

[Dunenewt]

America is the richest nation in the world, yet it is far behind many other nations in terms of the standards of living of the average man. That says a lot.

It's the most in debt country in the world.