Poverty

[GUNWOUNDS]

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

yes but that can be a good thing at times....

for instance we are massively in debt... yet... we pay off massive portions of the debt at a time as well....

what does this mean?

[Dunenewt]

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

I didn't read the post I just quoted it.

[Andrew]

@Gunwounds

The U.S. had more banks go bankrupt than Canada, especially during the early 20th century.

But the U.S. and Canadian bank systems are quite different. ;)

You are completely right about needing credit.

But I think for every Canadian dollar about 10 cents goes toward paying the debt (or something like that I learned about 7 years ago). So being in debt is not really a good thing, unless you know you can pay it off like you are supposed to.

[GUNWOUNDS]

@Gunwounds

The U.S. had more banks go bankrupt than Canada, especially during the early 20th century.

does what you just said have an effect on country to country debt?

[Anathema]

Is the US really the most indebt country? Italy has a debt of 100% of their GDP, and spend almost 12% of their GDP anually on interest...

[Andrew]

Well it would depend if you are talking in percent terms, or number terms.

US = largest economic country in world (or at least pretty close), therefore they probably have the largest debt, yet it may only be a small percent of their GDP. (Just made that up as an example :))

But since Bush's spending spree, I'm guessing they are in more debt than when Clinton was in.

[Anathema]

Actually Bush' spendings are just a minor addition to what is already a tall heap. The current debt is mostly due to the leadership of Reagan and Bush senior.

Q: What do you intend to do about the national debt?

A: Nothing, the debt has grown big enough to take care of itself now.

- Reagan during an interview

[Andrew]

Well the trillions of dollars he spent on the wars. Which meant he could have given each person in the US around $3 000 each. But that oil is worth so much! It's like liquid gold! And once industries are up they can get cheap labour to send products back to the US. Bush was thinking. ::)

[Edric O]

When I said that the USA is the "richest country in the world", I meant in terms of per capita GDP.

And the current US debt was NOT inherited from the Reagan era. That's the amazing thing. Clinton paid off the Reagan debt and created a surplus of $274.1 billion by the year 2000. In the last four years, however, Bush hasn't only spent the entire surplus, but he also created an immense deficit of around $400 billion.

This is probably a record-breaking economic disaster. And yet the Republicans blame the Democrats for "over-spending"!

[TMA_1]

yeah edric I agree to a point. BUT clinton also helped destroy the "saftey net", and with Newt Gingrich he helped in destroy welfare as we know it now, with thigns like welfare to work that almost destroyed my family. My goodness clinton was conservitive in many ways, and in most ways where I disagree. The funny thing is welfare was only abused by a small percentage, something like 2 %, yet him and others helped in destroying it, making it so that people with welfare have to work, or search for sometimes over 40 hours a week for jobs or recieve job training which usually only helps in getting people extremely low wage jobs. It just makes me sad, and this is why I dispise clinton.

Not only this but clinton and his aids and staff didnt do all the work. America is odd in that it's economy fluctuates, and often not by the will of the presidency. It goes up and down with each president, and frankly from what I have studied it seems that clinton largely rode the wave of an economy that was going up, aided by technology and internet fads that died out near the end of his administration.

His staff and him did do some stuff, but it was largely a paper tiger, and people dont get that! also people now days are growing sicker to me, opting more towards fiscal conservitive beliefs, with liberal social ideals.  So that the poor are growing poorer and the rich are growing richer, and the democrats are just as bad!

[nemafakei]

"When I said that the USA is the "richest country in the world", I meant in terms of per capita GDP"

Hmm. My paper reference has Switzerland US$32,790, USA $21,700.

"In the last four years, however, Bush hasn't only spent the entire surplus, but he also created an immense deficit of around $400 billion"

Oh, but Gunwounds will assure you that debt is good!

In fact, it proves that Bush is far more trustworthy than Clinton!

[GUNWOUNDS]

Oh, but Gunwounds will assure you that debt is good!!

Not exactly ... just that if you are capable of honoring the debt and capable of handling that kind of debt then good things could come out of it.  Paying off a 400 billion debt would show that the US has extreme payment power and would send our credit skyrocketing.  Sometimes dealing with adversity and overcoming it can be more rewarding than never having faced that adversity at all.

[Andrew]

Hehe, I can see all the 3rd world thinking the same thing ;)

Lets take as many loans as other countries will give us, since they know we cant pay them off they will not expect the money back.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Hehe, I can see all the 3rd world thinking the same thing ;)

Lets take as many loans as other countries will give us, since they know we cant pay them off they will not expect the money back.

that actually happens quite often.... America has allowed many countries to default on loans owned to the USA.

[Andrew]

Actually some countries (US etc) has let the 3rd world countries let off of their debt.

So basicly the 3rd world country got free cash.

And their credit was probably shit to begin with, but industrialized countries took the risk.

No point in starting WW3 over some due cash like WW2 (one of the many reasons). :)

[Edric O]

"When I said that the USA is the "richest country in the world", I meant in terms of per capita GDP"

Hmm. My paper reference has Switzerland US$32,790, USA $21,700.

Whoops. :) Ok, then I guess the USA is second richest...

yeah edric I agree to a point. BUT clinton also helped destroy the "saftey net", and with Newt Gingrich he helped in destroy welfare as we know it now, with thigns like welfare to work that almost destroyed my family. My goodness clinton was conservitive in many ways, and in most ways where I disagree. The funny thing is welfare was only abused by a small percentage, something like 2 %, yet him and others helped in destroying it, making it so that people with welfare have to work, or search for sometimes over 40 hours a week for jobs or recieve job training which usually only helps in getting people extremely low wage jobs. It just makes me sad, and this is why I dispise clinton.

Don't get me wrong. I don't support Clinton and I never did. Clinton isn't just "similar" to a conservative - he IS a conservative. As you probably know, he represents the right-wing of the Democratic Party, which is already center-right. In many ways, Clinton was very close to Tony Blair, and they are both worthless bastards.

All I did was to point out that Clinton was better than Bush (or perhaps I should say "less bad"), which isn't saying much... seeing how just about anyone is better than Bush.

I'm sorry to hear about your family's troubles... :( See, this is exactly the reason why I fight against capitalism. You should tell more people your story. Particularly those with right-wing economic views need to hear it.

Not only this but clinton and his aids and staff didnt do all the work. America is odd in that it's economy fluctuates, and often not by the will of the presidency. It goes up and down with each president, and frankly from what I have studied it seems that clinton largely rode the wave of an economy that was going up, aided by technology and internet fads that died out near the end of his administration.

I wouldn't know about that, but I suppose it is entirely possible. However, that doesn't excuse Bush's complete destruction of the surplus and the creation of a monster deficit in just 4 years. The drop is far too great to be any kind of natural fluctuation. It's bad economic policy.

His staff and him did do some stuff, but it was largely a paper tiger, and people dont get that! also people now days are growing sicker to me, opting more towards fiscal conservitive beliefs, with liberal social ideals.  So that the poor are growing poorer and the rich are growing richer, and the democrats are just as bad!

I know! That's why Americans should either take back the Democratic Party and make it truly leftist, or find some way to establish a powerful 3rd party with a socialist platform.

As for the libertarians (fiscal conservative / social liberal), they are the scourge of the Earth and the enemy I despise most (perhaps with the exception of nazis). They have the arrogance to cloak their inhumane policies (which would actually result in slavery if taken to their logical conclusion - I can explain this in more detail if you wish) in empty rhethoric about "freedom". This cowardly attempt to hide their true nature makes them worse than the conservatives. Well, that, and the fact that they are supremely annoying and dogmatic. And the fact that their name was stolen from left-wingers ("libertarian" used to mean "libertarian socialist").

If you encounter any libertarians, point them to this website, and/or send them my way. Most of their arguments are so extremely predictable that refuting them is simple routine. And besides, I eat their kind for breakfast. ;)

[Caid Ivik]

You can't measure how rich country is by production. Not all production is consumed, some wealth stays. For example cultural testimony like art or architecture can make countries like Greece, Italy or France much richer than USA. Not talking that I don't agree with mattery to be the only form of wealth as well.

[Dunenewt]

Iceland, Litchenstein, and Norway (the richest country in the world in terms of GDP per capita) are all richer than USA in terms of GDP per capita.

[Edric O]

Ok, I get the point... Never mind what I said about the USA being "the richest country in the world". Looks like I was wrong. But nevertheless, many other countries are able to do more and achieve higher living standards with less money. And the USA isn't exactly "poor", you know. Even if it's not the richest country in the world, it's among the richest.

[Caid Ivik]

Actually, economical strength of USA (and most other countries) is that state itself has minimal contribution on the fact they are rich.

[Edric O]

Heh, yes, too bad the state also has no more than a minimal contribution to the well-being of those Americans who are poor.

And frankly, I would feel better knowing that a democratic state is in charge of things - because I can affect it with my vote - than knowing that all-powerful corporations are in charge of things.

[Caid Ivik]

First of all, what are "things"?

[TMA_1]

hey edric thanks for undrestanding, that was really sweet:) it is rare when somebody will listen. It isnt out of pity that I brought all that stuff up, it is just a reality!

People always would tell me "well peopel abuse and take advantage of the system, so we have to put measures in place so that we can make sure they work and dont just sit around the house and do nothing".

This is sick! My dad has a Masters degree and my mom a Bachelors, but because of my sister's problems we had no stable life at home in the sense that we were at home maybe about 8 or 9 months out of the year, and that is not an exaggeration. It was so unstable that my parents could rarely find jobs. My mom finally got a job that paid horribly, and we had to have government assistance in order to survive. We werent just a minority either!

One of the few redeeming points of Bowling for Columbine shows a woman that had to take two jobs with the cursed welfare to work program. She had to leave her home and work two jobs, and she was never home. She had to be bussed to and from work, and they were cheap jobs too! her son ended up killing a little girl because he had no family life at home, and that was not the mom's fault, she had to make a living.

If only the government understood that we should at least try to help the poor, and if only the government realized that we need to go back to the roots of our government system, than things would be better. I mean there was an old saying by the founding fathers that went something like "I would rather let a guilty man go free than an innocent man be jailed". This should work the same for those who are poor. Sure there will be abuses of the system, but would you sacrifice the poor just to punish the guilty? There are many places in america where it is hard to find jobs, and though the job market is increasing, the amount of well paying jobs is still extremely low. You cannot support a family by working at burger king, good grief.

Look at the jewish system of government before the ripping apart of the southern and northern kingdoms. They had a system where all debts would be forgiven every seven years. All slaves could go free every jubalee, because all men are inherently equal and slavery was just a way to make a living. If as a master you even broke the tooth of a slave the slave went free, and anybody who saw bad conditions for slaves could free that slave if he was a citizen. Not only this but the poor and the widows were taken care of so they could have comfortable lives. Now this wasent always the case as sometimes israel went down hill, but many times this system did work.

Why cant America take care of the poor? Why is tehre a stigma of poverty? My family is not dirt poor, but we are apart of the working poor. There is a large percentage of america in that bracket and it suffers much. The sad thing is not only are they harrassed by the elitist rich, but also the middle class! Not all poor people wish to be poor, and the destruction of socialist programs is growing.

Sure we have more and more jobs each month in america, but if you feel that you could make a living for you and your family with 9 dollars an hour, than you are nuts. The quantity of jobs is meaningless if the quality of pay is poor. that is all iahve to say about htat.

[Edric O]

First of all, what are "things"?

From my post, you could have deduced that I was talking about what the corporations are currently in charge of. Namely, the economy.

hey edric thanks for undrestanding, that was really sweet:) it is rare when somebody will listen. It isnt out of pity that I brought all that stuff up, it is just a reality!

You're welcome. But what do you mean it's rare for people to listen? Surely your own experience is an important issue in any discussion about politics?

People always would tell me "well peopel abuse and take advantage of the system, so we have to put measures in place so that we can make sure they work and dont just sit around the house and do nothing".

Tell them they should try putting those measures in place for the rich. How about starting with Paris Hilton?

This is sick! My dad has a Masters degree and my mom a Bachelors, but because of my sister's problems we had no stable life at home in the sense that we were at home maybe about 8 or 9 months out of the year, and that is not an exaggeration. It was so unstable that my parents could rarely find jobs. My mom finally got a job that paid horribly, and we had to have government assistance in order to survive. We werent just a minority either!

One of the few redeeming points of Bowling for Columbine shows a woman that had to take two jobs with the cursed welfare to work program. She had to leave her home and work two jobs, and she was never home. She had to be bussed to and from work, and they were cheap jobs too! her son ended up killing a little girl because he had no family life at home, and that was not the mom's fault, she had to make a living.

I know, I know! And more people need to know! You need to speak up and make all the other Americans aware of what's going on right on their doorstep! There is a stereotypical image of the lazy welfare recipient that you need to dispell. The rich have their cronies working hard to give the poor a bad image and blame them for everything that's wrong with the country, in order to divert attention from the rich themselves.

If only the government understood that we should at least try to help the poor, and if only the government realized that we need to go back to the roots of our government system, than things would be better. I mean there was an old saying by the founding fathers that went something like "I would rather let a guilty man go free than an innocent man be jailed". This should work the same for those who are poor. Sure there will be abuses of the system, but would you sacrifice the poor just to punish the guilty? There are many places in america where it is hard to find jobs, and though the job market is increasing, the amount of well paying jobs is still extremely low. You cannot support a family by working at burger king, good grief.

I agree. You are perfectly right. But keep in mind that the government won't understand anything unless you make it understand. No people ever won their rights without organizing, taking action, and forcing the government to listen.

Why cant America take care of the poor? Why is tehre a stigma of poverty? My family is not dirt poor, but we are apart of the working poor. There is a large percentage of america in that bracket and it suffers much. The sad thing is not only are they harrassed by the elitist rich, but also the middle class! Not all poor people wish to be poor, and the destruction of socialist programs is growing.

Sure we have more and more jobs each month in america, but if you feel that you could make a living for you and your family with 9 dollars an hour, than you are nuts. The quantity of jobs is meaningless if the quality of pay is poor. that is all iahve to say about htat.

Again, what can I say? You're absolutely right!

As for the stigma of poverty and the reason why America doesn't take care of its poor, I suspect it's twofold: First of all, many middle-class Americans simply have no idea about the situation of the poor, beyond whatever they see on TV (and since TV channels are owned by the rich, you can bet they won't put the poor in a good light). Second of all, the American poor don't have a history of standing up for their rights, unlike the poor in other parts of the world. How many American working class organizations can you name, other than the unions? You need to start standing up for yourselves and make the rich listen.

You won't believe some of the outrageous things I heard from ignorant people on other forums. I recently talked to a guy who claimed that there is no such thing as the working poor. Such people are simply out of touch with reality - and they need a serious awakening. We need to raise awareness regarding the working poor like you and your family, TMA. You could, for example, write down your story, and make it available for people to read on the internet...

[Caid Ivik]

Who should be in charge of economy than economists themselves?  ;D