PDA

View Full Version : My disdain for the poor.



Pages : 1 2 [3]

manu1959
04-01-2007, 11:04 PM
The use of the word alleged does not mean that those are exceptions to the definition.

The Clayton Act prohibits:

>price discrimination between different purchasers if such discrimination substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce (Act Section 2, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 13);
>sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or leaser not deal with the competitors of the seller or lesser "exclusive dealings", or that the buyer also purchase another different product ("tying", also covered by the Sherman Act, Section 1), but only when these acts substantially lessen competition (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 14);
>mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition (Act Section 7, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 18);
any person from being a director of two or more competing corporations (Act Section 8; codified at 15 U.S.C. § 19).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act


your opinion of things is not fact.....once again you are trying so hard to be right at the expense of being correct

loosecannon
04-01-2007, 11:06 PM
Dude...I just got this off of wikipedia:

Lesson, don't use wikipedia...crazy people can edit anything they want in there. :laugh2:

For a day or a week, but the factcheckers and editors at Wiki are among the best qualified volunteers on earth. Besides, what is your point? Can you distinguish a single non credible detail in that entire article? And offer a substantive, authoritarian rebuttal?

Because if not we must conclude that you don't know what the fuck YOU are talking about. Fool.

loosecannon
04-01-2007, 11:09 PM
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, (October 15, 1914, ch. 323, 38 Stat. 730, codified at 15 U.S.C. § 12-27, 29 U.S.C. § 52-53), was enacted in the United States to remedy deficiencies in antitrust law created under the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, the first Federal law outlawing practices harmful to consumers (monopolies and anti-competitive agreements). Passed during the Wilson administration, the legislation was introduced by Alabama Democrat Henry De Lamar Clayton.

Microsoft is not a monopoly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Camus


everything written above the URL is on wikipedia...

Listen dumbshit, the Clayton Antitrust Act is US Federal LAW. IT defines what monopolies ARE in the US by LEGAL standards.

Are you dense or what?

manu1959
04-01-2007, 11:11 PM
For a day or a week, but the factcheckers and editors at Wiki are among the best qualified volunteers on earth. Besides, what is your point? Can you distinguish a single non credible detail in that entire article? And offer a substantive, authoritarian rebuttal?

Because if not we must conclude that you don't know what the fuck YOU are talking about. Fool.


alleged does not equal guilty....

Allegations remain assertions without proof, only claims until they are proved.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged

you loooooooooooooooooooose :fu:

grunt
04-01-2007, 11:12 PM
For a day or a week, but the factcheckers and editors at Wiki are among the best qualified volunteers on earth. Besides, what is your point? Can you distinguish a single non credible detail in that entire article? And offer a substantive, authoritarian rebuttal?

Because if not we must conclude that you don't know what the fuck YOU are talking about. Fool.


LOL! Don't get all pissy. We actually agree with more than we disagree. I just don't see microsoft as a monopoly. Unethical? Sure. Greedy? You betcha. But microsoft has been to court many times and when they have been found guilty, they paid. I realize that lobbying goes on in this Country and some people get away with illegal things because nearly all politicians are corrupt and will sell their souls for a vote. This is never going to change until the US people are fed up with it and change the way politicians run a campaign. I'm all for NO FUNDING FROM ANY PRIVATE ORGANIZATION! And a cap put on the donations that are allowed. This is the big problem, not microsoft.

loosecannon
04-01-2007, 11:13 PM
your opinion of things is not fact.....once again you are trying so hard to be right at the expense of being correct


Fuck off and die idiot. You have not presented ANY meaningful opinion, fact, reference or source in this entire thread.

You don't have the first clue in the world what you are talking about and you can't follow a discussion to boot.

grunt
04-01-2007, 11:15 PM
Listen dumbshit, the Clayton Antitrust Act is US Federal LAW. IT defines what monopolies ARE in the US by LEGAL standards.

Are you dense or what?


I realize that. That's why microsoft hasn't been broken apart.

Now, if you really want to continue the debate, I'm all for it, but if you just want to engage in childish name calling, well, I'll see ya.

manu1959
04-01-2007, 11:16 PM
Fuck off and die idiot. You have not presented ANY meaningful opinion, fact, reference or source in this entire thread.

You don't have the first clue in the world what you are talking about and you can't follow a discussion to boot.

what a reasonable and intelligent response

5stringJeff
04-01-2007, 11:27 PM
Microsoft is without any question a monopoly and deserves to be split into 50 smaller companies.

But Gates donates heavily to both parties as do his corporate millionaires.

And the climate today is all about building monopolies not breaking them apart which is why WalMart, Exxon Mobile and MS are SO big.

There is far more corporate consolidation and merging than rightsizing.

We need an Attorney General who will follow the law and not political pleasures. We haven't had such an Attorney G since Ed Levi in the 70's.

here's a good summary:

http://www.investopedia.com/articles/04/040704.asp

But to answer your question, we need to demand that antitrust legislation be enforced via the AG who serves at the direction of the president.

We need to hold their feet to the flames in the court of public debate and the MSM, in editorials, letters to congressmen and by communicating directly with candidates fundraising apparatus.

Walmart, Microsoft, and ExxonMobil are three companies which are not, in any sense, monopolies. Walmart's competitors include Target, KMart, Safeway, and every other supermarket chain in America. ExxonMobil's competitors include BP, ChevronTexaco, Shell, Arco, Conoco, etc. etc. Microsoft's competitors vary by product; Apple is certainly a large competitor, as are Linux producers, Mozilla, Netscape, etc.

What's more, anyone is free to enter these markets and compete. Is that difficult to do? Absolutely!!! That's why the reward for succeeding is so great. If anyone could do it, it wouldn't be worth doing, economically.

MtnBiker
04-01-2007, 11:27 PM
Loosecannon, you need to tone down the language.

grunt
04-01-2007, 11:36 PM
Loosecannon, you need to tone down the language.


You mean we can't tell someone to "fuck off and die"?? :laugh2: :laugh2:

manu1959
04-01-2007, 11:38 PM
You mean we can't tell someone to "fuck off and die"?? :laugh2: :laugh2:

only when you are getting your ass handed to you in an argument:laugh2:

grunt
04-01-2007, 11:40 PM
only when you are getting your ass handed to you in an argument:laugh2:

I understand what the guy is trying to say. It's just that he's going about it the wrong way. By screaming "monopoly" at every succesful company in the US he just comes off as a socialist. He sounds like he's really young though, he'll learn. :laugh2:

MtnBiker
04-01-2007, 11:42 PM
You mean we can't tell someone to "fuck off and die"?? :laugh2: :laugh2:

I really isn't necessary.

Abbey Marie
04-01-2007, 11:42 PM
I understand what the guy is trying to say. It's just that he's going about it the wrong way. By screaming "monopoly" at every succesful company in the US he just comes off as a socialist. He sounds like he's really young though, he'll learn. :laugh2:

From where I sit, he is a socialist.

manu1959
04-01-2007, 11:46 PM
I understand what the guy is trying to say. It's just that he's going about it the wrong way. By screaming "monopoly" at every succesful company in the US he just comes off as a socialist. He sounds like he's really young though, he'll learn. :laugh2:

ok what is he trying to say...

grunt
04-01-2007, 11:54 PM
ok what is he trying to say...



He's saying that the Government is corrupt and politicians are easliy swayed in order to get a vote.

manu1959
04-02-2007, 12:01 AM
He's saying that the Government is corrupt and politicians are easliy swayed in order to get a vote.

okey dokey

avatar4321
04-02-2007, 01:29 AM
I understand what the guy is trying to say. It's just that he's going about it the wrong way. By screaming "monopoly" at every succesful company in the US he just comes off as a socialist. He sounds like he's really young though, he'll learn. :laugh2:

He can scream monopoly all he wants. Im not selling boardwalk or park place:-p

avatar4321
04-02-2007, 01:29 AM
From where I sit, he is a socialist.

by any objective standard he is. But he doesnt like that title.

avatar4321
04-02-2007, 01:30 AM
He's saying that the Government is corrupt and politicians are easliy swayed in order to get a vote.

Of course they are. Its freaking politics. That is exactly why us conservatives stand for smaller government, more individual rights, less regulation. Problem is the politicians we elect tend to forget who the hell they are the second they take the oath of office.

manu1959
04-02-2007, 08:09 PM
Fuck off and die idiot. You have not presented ANY meaningful opinion, fact, reference or source in this entire thread.

You don't have the first clue in the world what you are talking about and you can't follow a discussion to boot.

stopped you in your tracks though....:laugh2:

SassyLady
04-04-2007, 03:09 AM
Those who make $8 billion a year steal liberty, food and basic survival necessities from those who weren't so lucky.

Again the "liberty" to earn huge fortunes is not bound by our law.

Loose - if I have a million dollars (that I worked hard for over the last 30 years) invested and it keeps building upon itself expotentially - you are right.... I am not personally "working". Who knows, it may even make me $8 billion eventually. How is that "stealing" from those who, as you state, were "unlucky".

Are you saying that I should NOT have invested that money into companies that used it to provide jobs for minimum wage workers?

You really confuse me with your absolute statements that because people like myself worked hard to get an education (working 10-12 hours days at my own business, raising three kids and going to night school to get a higher education so I could earn more) and are able to make more money we are stealing from those that are satisfied with minimum wage.

We have 50 people who work for us in our entry level position. We keep that starting wage at least $1.25 above minimum wage and CA's minimum wage is one of the highest in the nation ($7.50). January 1, 2007, we had to give a $.75 increase to all 50 people. That raised our basic labor/hour cost by $37.50. When that cost goes up, so does the worker's compensation insurance and the liability insurance and our portion of the payroll tax. This year's minimum wage increase just cost us an extra $100K. January 1, 2008, everyone will get another $1.00 increase........another $100K+ increase. Guess what? I have to raise my rates to my clients and they are not happy. Guess they'll have to raise their rates to consumers like yourself.

And, the sad thing is .......... our product and the skill level of these people is no better than it was last year.

SassyLady
04-04-2007, 03:33 AM
the Sherman Antitrust Act was designed to eliminate cartels and monopolies like The super small oil companies of the 1904 era when the US supreme court divided the largest of the day into not 3 or 5, but 34 right sized companies?

WalMart is probably 100 times larger than it would need to be to be a candidate for antitrust lawsuits according to the existing law.

Exxon Mobile, maybe 300 times larger than the law would allow, IF the law had been enforced since the 70's.


When Standard Oil was divided up - how many competitors did it have? I think it had over 90% of the market share.

What is WalMart's market share? Being the number one retailer does not necessarily make it a monopoly.

Rahul
06-05-2007, 01:20 PM
I read the OP, not much else after that (too long of a thread), but I have to say the OP is generalizing a bit too much - I don't think all poor people behave the way the person in the OP's story did.

There ARE people who work hard, and aren't rich ... Hard as that might be to believe for some ... :)

Hobbit
06-05-2007, 03:16 PM
I read the OP, not much else after that (too long of a thread), but I have to say the OP is generalizing a bit too much - I don't think all poor people behave the way the person in the OP's story did.

There ARE people who work hard, and aren't rich ... Hard as that might be to believe for some ... :)

It's a generalization. There are some hard working poor people, but they're the minority, and the main point of the article is that those who don't work hard are usually the ones complaining how unfair it is that they're poor.

Rahul
06-05-2007, 09:11 PM
It's a generalization. There are some hard working poor people, but they're the minority, and the main point of the article is that those who don't work hard are usually the ones complaining how unfair it is that they're poor.

Agreed, provided they do not have any other disabilities of any nature (genuine disabilities) that might prevent them from working or holding down a job.

:beer:

truthmatters
08-07-2007, 03:23 PM
It seems she was married to two of the fathers.

Only her last two were out of wedlock.

The compassion on this site is just overwhleming

red states rule
08-07-2007, 03:31 PM
It seems she was married to two of the fathers.

Only her last two were out of wedlock.

The compassion on this site is just overwhleming

Compassionate libs have spent $9 trillion on the "poor" - and they say we need to spend more

truthmatters
08-07-2007, 03:41 PM
well you may be rich living in your grandmas basement stroking your Ronny Reagan action dolls(the cowboys his favorite) and drinking your strawberry Yahoo from that well stocked mini fridge and sitting in front of your computor but you need to remember not everyone can own the complete set of "little house on the prarie" and have a grandma so understanding yours.

You see someday you may be one of the poor, what happens when grandma dies ?

Do you think Mom and Dad are going to let you move back into the Garage again?

Dont count on it !

red states rule
08-07-2007, 03:42 PM
well you may be rich living in your grandmas basement stroking your Ronny Reagan action dolls(the coeboys his favorite) and drinking your strawberry Yahoo from that well stocked mini fridge and sitting in front of your computor but you need to remember not everyone can own the complete set of "little house on the prarie" and have a grandma so understanding yours.

You see someday you may be one of the poor, what happens when grandma dies ?

Do you think Mom and Dad are going to let you move back into the Garage again?

Dont count on it !



Ah, the usual reply from a liberal when he can't counter the truth

avatar4321
08-07-2007, 04:51 PM
It seems she was married to two of the fathers.

Only her last two were out of wedlock.

The compassion on this site is just overwhleming

It has been overwhelming. The compassion by the author has been shameful.

Most people can see atleast 5 things the woman could do to help her family. The writer, rather than actually helping her, would rather use her to further his political objective.

Raising the minimum wage will not help this woman. it just artificially raises costs and expenses she is going to have to make. There is nothing compassionate about that.

Anyone approving of the article should be ashamed because of the disgusting way the author is using her rather than helping her out. Why do you care more about winning pointless political battles than doing things to help her? Why would you rather act like you are helping her while you arent rather than just helping her??

avatar4321
08-07-2007, 04:54 PM
well you may be rich living in your grandmas basement stroking your Ronny Reagan action dolls(the cowboys his favorite) and drinking your strawberry Yahoo from that well stocked mini fridge and sitting in front of your computor but you need to remember not everyone can own the complete set of "little house on the prarie" and have a grandma so understanding yours.

You see someday you may be one of the poor, what happens when grandma dies ?

Do you think Mom and Dad are going to let you move back into the Garage again?

Dont count on it !

Some of us have already been poor. Unlike you we dont expect hand outs. We expect to work hard and support ourselves.

Thats the problem with liberals, rather than encourage the human spirit you insult it and act like we cant do a damn thing unless the government gives us money.

People who are willing to work hard and sacrifice will never be poor because they will overcome it.

red states rule
08-07-2007, 05:05 PM
Being poor in America is not that bad

The following are facts about persons defined as "poor" by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.

Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.

Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.

Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.

Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.

Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier that the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II.

While the poor are generally well-nourished, some poor families do experience hunger, meaning a temporary discomfort due to food shortages. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 13 percent of poor families and 2.6 percent of poor children experience hunger at some point during the year. In most cases, their hunger is short-term. Eighty-nine percent of the poor report their families have "enough" food to eat, while only 2 percent say they "often" do not have enough to eat.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians.

Of course, the living conditions of the average poor American should not be taken as representing all the poor. There is actually a wide range in living conditions among the poor. For example, over a quarter of poor households have cell phones and telephone answering machines, but, at the other extreme, approximately one-tenth have no phone at all. While the majority of poor households do not experience significant material problems, roughly a third do experience at least one problem such as overcrowding, temporary hunger, or difficulty getting medical care.

The best news is that remaining poverty can readily be reduced further, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don't work much, and fathers are absent from the home.

In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

DragonStryk72
08-30-2007, 03:05 AM
"Come on, you Yankees... wipe those tears. I know that hearing of some dumb welfare queen shivering in the 40 degree weather just tears you up inside. :roll:"

40 frickin' degrees? As a yankee, I've gone out in shorts in worse than that.

I pretty much agree with you down the line on this one. I could understand if all 6 kids had the same birthday, I mean, no way to really prepare for that one, but obviously, this woman continued to repeat the same set of mistakes. A wage increase would do absolutely nothing, She had a paying job that would have covered..... and quit. she didn't "have to quit", I live in Norfolk, (came south for Navy, stayed for the sweet tea, and to be part of fife and drum at CW, from there, moved up), and it's a perfectly nice area to live in (low cost of living, good schools, decent crime rate. 35k would have assured her a decent townhome or apartment, with something to put aside for rainy days), so I see no reason why in the hell she suddenly upped and decided, with six kids (2 would later be taken by someone thinking with their head).

Let me expalin: Here in Norfolk, I could get a decent place over at the Colony Apartments for under 600, three bedroom, 1.5 bath, heat and hot water included, with a bus stop just ouside the complex, and local jobs with places such as wal-mart (despite what you're thinking, with no exp, you can start $7 an hour there easily enough, and that's before regular raises start hitting.) for full-time, with benefits, a career path, and decent schools nearby. this is not a hard place to find a place in.

As much as I care for others plights, this woman dug this hole herself, one terrible decision at a time. We should not be paying for this woman, not one ounce. I reserve my sympathies for those who are making concious efforts to get themselves out of the hole, not dig it deeper.

avatar4321
08-30-2007, 03:20 AM
This has been one of the discussions ive liked the most on this board.

I think it clearly shows the difference between liberals and conservatives.

It demonstrates that liberals want to look compassionate rather than solve problems. Their solutions always involve government intervention.

It demonstrates that conservatives would actually like to solve the problem by teaching the women how to better take care of herself and her children. Conservative solutions focus on the empowerment and freedom of the individual.

And I think that is why conservative ideas will always be superior.

Nukeman
08-30-2007, 07:10 AM
This has been one of the discussions ive liked the most on this board.

I think it clearly shows the difference between liberals and conservatives.

It demonstrates that liberals want to look compassionate rather than solve problems. Their solutions always involve government intervention.

It demonstrates that conservatives would actually like to solve the problem by teaching the women how to better take care of herself and her children. Conservative solutions focus on the empowerment and freedom of the individual.

And I think that is why conservative ideas will always be superior.

Wait you mean we can actually solve a problem instead of just throwing a little money at it!!!!!! I am completely amazed!!!!! ok sarcasm off...

You are exactly right I tried to rep yaa but I need to spread some more around..

JohnDoe
08-30-2007, 08:19 AM
the sollution involves a good, equal, education in the elementary and high school years.

which does involve via laws, some federal dollars now, about 7% of the bill for education, I believe the states/towns/cities supply over 90% of the cost of education....or something like this....and according to my interpretation of the constitution, education is delegated to the states, not the Feds, but setting this aside...

If every citizen had an equally good education in their youth, then we would not have as many problems with poverty, later in life....imho.

glockmail
08-30-2007, 08:45 AM
the sollution involves a good, equal, education in the elementary and high school years.

which does involve via laws, some federal dollars now, about 7% of the bill for education, I believe the states/towns/cities supply over 90% of the cost of education....or something like this....and according to my interpretation of the constitution, education is delegated to the states, not the Feds, but setting this aside...

If every citizen had an equally good education in their youth, then we would not have as many problems with poverty, later in life....imho.

Or school choice, vouchers, and banishment of the teacher's union.

Oh, and reinstitute corporal punishment. :D

truthmatters
08-30-2007, 09:16 AM
"Come on, you Yankees... wipe those tears. I know that hearing of some dumb welfare queen shivering in the 40 degree weather just tears you up inside. :roll:"

40 frickin' degrees? As a yankee, I've gone out in shorts in worse than that.

I pretty much agree with you down the line on this one. I could understand if all 6 kids had the same birthday, I mean, no way to really prepare for that one, but obviously, this woman continued to repeat the same set of mistakes. A wage increase would do absolutely nothing, She had a paying job that would have covered..... and quit. she didn't "have to quit", I live in Norfolk, (came south for Navy, stayed for the sweet tea, and to be part of fife and drum at CW, from there, moved up), and it's a perfectly nice area to live in (low cost of living, good schools, decent crime rate. 35k would have assured her a decent townhome or apartment, with something to put aside for rainy days), so I see no reason why in the hell she suddenly upped and decided, with six kids (2 would later be taken by someone thinking with their head).

Let me expalin: Here in Norfolk, I could get a decent place over at the Colony Apartments for under 600, three bedroom, 1.5 bath, heat and hot water included, with a bus stop just ouside the complex, and local jobs with places such as wal-mart (despite what you're thinking, with no exp, you can start $7 an hour there easily enough, and that's before regular raises start hitting.) for full-time, with benefits, a career path, and decent schools nearby. this is not a hard place to find a place in.

As much as I care for others plights, this woman dug this hole herself, one terrible decision at a time. We should not be paying for this woman, not one ounce. I reserve my sympathies for those who are making concious efforts to get themselves out of the hole, not dig it deeper.


What about the childern in the home?

Do we let them just starve and go without because this woman has made mistakes?

Abbey Marie
08-30-2007, 09:21 AM
the sollution involves a good, equal, education in the elementary and high school years.

which does involve via laws, some federal dollars now, about 7% of the bill for education, I believe the states/towns/cities supply over 90% of the cost of education....or something like this....and according to my interpretation of the constitution, education is delegated to the states, not the Feds, but setting this aside...

If every citizen had an equally good education in their youth, then we would not have as many problems with poverty, later in life....imho.


I must strongly disagree with your premise. Our district still buses kids from downtown to the suburbs, and vice versa. Exactly the same amount of dollars are spent on straight education, but minorities in reality receive more dollars due to busing done for their benefit, free or reduced breakfast and lunches, special services such as one on one mentoring, etc., etc. YET, black kids still under-perform by a large margin, and are disproportionately high in discipline problems.

The reasons are simple, IMO:

1. Education must be valued at home. This includes parents showing interest in school work, caring about grades.
2. Education must be valued in the culture. Accusing a good black student of "acting white" doesn't help the situation.
3. There needs to be a stable home life, preferably with a present and involved father, too.
4. There must be a positive attittude towards authority at home, including school admin and teachers.
5. Reading should be modeled, and encourged at a very young age.

If these things are not present, there isn't much the schools can do but babysit future dropouts, while our tax dollars get thrown at a problem that can't be solved by tax dollars. Oh, and that means, at least in our district, less money available for the upper end students, who are viewed as being able to take care of themselves in an AP Calculus class of 37 students, for example.

Nukeman
08-30-2007, 09:21 AM
What about the childern in the home?

Do we let them just starve and go without because this woman has made mistakes?
Ohhh great here come the vaunted Liberal rallying cry of "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN".

Our poor in the US are some of the fattest people on the earth.

If your really concerned about "the children" see postmodernprophets charity and help them.

There are more than ample programs to ensure these children recieve an education as well are properly fed and clothed. Remember SHE HAD HER CHILDREN NOT ANYONE ELSE. She choose to continue to have more even though she was poor. Where is her RESPONSIBILITY..........:poke:

truthmatters
08-30-2007, 09:23 AM
Ohhh great here come the vaunted Liberal rallying cry of "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN".

Our poor in the US are some of the fattest people on the earth.

If your really concerned about "the children" see postmodernprophets charity and help them.

There are more than ample programs to ensure these children recieve an education as well are properly fed and clothed. Remember SHE HAD HER CHILDREN NOT ANYONE ELSE. She choose to continue to have more even though she was poor. Where is her RESPONSIBILITY..........:poke:


What are these programs that you are talking about?

truthmatters
08-30-2007, 09:54 AM
I must strongly disagree with your premise. Our district still buses kids from downtown to the suburbs, and vice versa. Exactly the same amount of dollars are spent on straight education, but minorities in reality receiving more dollars due to busing done for their benefit, free or reduced breakfast and lunches, special services such as one on one mentoring, etc., etc. YET, black kids still under-perform by a large margin, and are disproportionately high in discipline problems.

The reasons are simple, IMO:

1. Education must be valued at home. This includes parents showing interest in school work, caring about grades.
2. Education must be valued in the culture. Accusing a good black student of "acting white" doesn't help the situation.
3. There needs to be a stable home life, preferably with a present and involved father, too.
4. There must be a positive attittude towards authority, including school admin and teachers.
5. Reading should be modeled, and encourged at a very young age.

If these things are not present, there isn't much the schools can do but babysit future dropouts, while our tax dollars get thrown at a problem that can't be solved by tax dollars. Oh, and that means, at least in our district, less money available for the upper end students, who are viewed as being able to take care of themselves in an AP Calculus class of 37 students, for example.

I agree with many of your points here but the only way to achieve these things in the household is to use a combination of programs to teach both parent and child how to implinment these things into their lives.

All it would take is a comprehensive attempt by our country to achieve this for 20 years.

You see you just need to catch one full genration to really impact the change then you would reap the rewards in increased tax base for generations.

Imagine if instead of doing Iraq we had stayed on AQs But in Afganistan to really fight who we needed to and then took the money we would have saved and Put it to this Aim?

Wow what a differnce we could have made.

Abbey Marie
08-30-2007, 10:14 AM
I agree with many of your points here but the only way to achieve these things in the household is to use a combination of programs to teach both parent and child how to implinment these things into their lives.

All it would take is a comprehensive attempt by our country to achieve this for 20 years.

You see you just need to catch one full genration to really impact the change then you would reap the rewards in increased tax base for generations.

Imagine if instead of doing Iraq we had stayed on AQs But in Afganistan to really fight who we needed to and then took the money we would have saved and Put it to this Aim?

Wow what a differnce we could have made.

We have been throwing money at educational programs for decades. We even have free pre-school for poor kids. Affirmative action. Financial Aid. The list goes on and on. The problems continue. Fundamental change in lifestyle cannot be fixed with money. Change tends to come from within and from family role-modeling.

Even when someone beloved by the black community like Bill Cosby tries to point out the effects of these poor choices, he is villified. A white person could never say those things. And walking on eggshells will never fix any problem.

Until people stop making poor choices, passing their poor cultural choices on to their ill-afforded children, disrespecting authority, and expecting the gov't to bail them out when things go wrong, the cycle will roll on indefinitely. No amount of education or money will change that. And walking on eggshells so as not to "offend" won't help anything.

The generation of blacks who are elderly now get it.

JohnDoe
08-30-2007, 10:29 AM
I must strongly disagree with your premise. Our district still buses kids from downtown to the suburbs, and vice versa. Exactly the same amount of dollars are spent on straight education, but minorities in reality receive more dollars due to busing done for their benefit, free or reduced breakfast and lunches, special services such as one on one mentoring, etc., etc. YET, black kids still under-perform by a large margin, and are disproportionately high in discipline problems.

The reasons are simple, IMO:

1. Education must be valued at home. This includes parents showing interest in school work, caring about grades.
2. Education must be valued in the culture. Accusing a good black student of "acting white" doesn't help the situation.
3. There needs to be a stable home life, preferably with a present and involved father, too.
4. There must be a positive attittude towards authority at home, including school admin and teachers.
5. Reading should be modeled, and encourged at a very young age.

If these things are not present, there isn't much the schools can do but babysit future dropouts, while our tax dollars get thrown at a problem that can't be solved by tax dollars. Oh, and that means, at least in our district, less money available for the upper end students, who are viewed as being able to take care of themselves in an AP Calculus class of 37 students, for example.

I agree with most of what you have said as part of the solution, however an equal education to me does not mean bussing kids to a school in a good neighborhood, to me it means having an equally good school in their OWN neighborhood, regarless of the small amounts of property tax they have to work with.

If there were a good, clean, and educationally sound school in their own neghborhoods to be proud of instead of envious of because they are bussed to it, would be an equally provided education.

And as it stands now, this is NOT at ALL the way it is....Abbey.

And maybe some states should go to massachusetts to see how it is done....they have one of the best educational systems in the nation....or they should visit one of the other top 5 in education, states to see how they do it?

btw, how do you plan to truely change the family values of those that you speak about...? ;)

jd

JohnDoe
08-30-2007, 10:45 AM
Remember! For those of you that are Christians!


James 2
Favoritism Forbidden

1My brothers, as believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, don't show favoritism. 2Suppose a man comes into your meeting wearing a gold ring and fine clothes, and a poor man in shabby clothes also comes in. 3If you show special attention to the man wearing fine clothes and say, "Here's a good seat for you," but say to the poor man, "You stand there" or "Sit on the floor by my feet," 4have you not discriminated among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?

5Listen, my dear brothers: Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who love him? 6But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? 7Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?

8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself,"[a] you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers. 10For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder."[c] If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker.

12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, [B]13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!


What do you all think this Scripture means?

jd

truthmatters
08-30-2007, 10:48 AM
We have been throwing money at educational programs for decades. We even have free pre-school for poor kids. Affirmative action. Financial Aid. The list goes on and on. The problems continue. Fundamental change in lifestyle cannot be fixed with money. Change tends to come from within and from family role-modeling.

Even when someone beloved by the black community like Bill Cosby tries to point out the effects of these poor choices, he is villified. A white person could never say those things. And walking on eggshells will never fix any problem.

Until people stop making poor choices, passing their poor cultural choices on to their ill-afforded children, disrespecting authority, and expecting the gov't to bail them out when things go wrong, the cycle will roll on indefinitely. No amount of education or money will change that. And walking on eggshells so as not to "offend" won't help anything.

The generation of blacks who are elderly now get it.


There was a recent report I think on the condition of American schools and there ws great disparity in even just the conditions of the buildings.

I will try to go find it for you.

It made points like some school buildings are litterally crumbling do to lack of repair.

Nukeman
08-30-2007, 11:03 AM
What are these programs that you are talking about?Your not serious with this question are you??????????

Nukeman
08-30-2007, 11:11 AM
Remember! For those of you that are Christians!



What do you all think this Scripture means?

jd
You need to go back and read the entire post it is not disdain for the poor it is a problem with the government and the writer of the article. This woman made very poor choices in her life she is not a poster child for the advancement and raising of the minimum wage that the intial article was about.

What most are saying is that she has made her choices and she should either rethink her life and quite asking for hand outs.

You should help yourself before asking others..

truthmatters
08-30-2007, 11:20 AM
Your not serious with this question are you??????????

lets discuss them and any changes they need?

truthmatters
08-30-2007, 11:24 AM
We have been throwing money at educational programs for decades. We even have free pre-school for poor kids. Affirmative action. Financial Aid. The list goes on and on. The problems continue. Fundamental change in lifestyle cannot be fixed with money. Change tends to come from within and from family role-modeling.

Even when someone beloved by the black community like Bill Cosby tries to point out the effects of these poor choices, he is villified. A white person could never say those things. And walking on eggshells will never fix any problem.

Until people stop making poor choices, passing their poor cultural choices on to their ill-afforded children, disrespecting authority, and expecting the gov't to bail them out when things go wrong, the cycle will roll on indefinitely. No amount of education or money will change that. And walking on eggshells so as not to "offend" won't help anything.

The generation of blacks who are elderly now get it.


So what do you see as a solutions other than these programs designed to help change the very problems you are worried about here?

You see even companies start programs to research and solve problems and when something needs fixing they stick to it until it pays off even if that research and development project takes years to reach fruation.
I wish we could run out government more like that dont you?

JohnDoe
08-30-2007, 11:59 AM
You need to go back and read the entire post it is not disdain for the poor it is a problem with the government and the writer of the article. This woman made very poor choices in her life she is not a poster child for the advancement and raising of the minimum wage that the intial article was about.

What most are saying is that she has made her choices and she should either rethink her life and quite asking for hand outs.

You should help yourself before asking others.. But Nuke, if the world was perfect, and everybody went off and helped themselves, then why did God ask us to give mercy to the poor?

What is the Mercy we are suppose to be giving them? What is Mercy and not judgement, in this passage of scripture?

I struggle with this and with understanding it all, but it has to have SOME meaning or intent behind the passage....that can relate to the times of today?

jd


p.s. This thread is so long, you are correct that I did not read it! :)

truthmatters
08-30-2007, 01:10 PM
I thought that was Jesus's main message?

I thought he wanted people to care for each other?

avatar4321
08-30-2007, 03:04 PM
What about the childern in the home?

Do we let them just starve and go without because this woman has made mistakes?

First, a number of those children at home are already over 18. They could get jobs for themselves if they really had to.

Second, you seem to be ignoring the point where we actually fix the problem by showing her how to manage money in her life and how to self improve her situation. You know actually fix the problem rather than artificially raise the mimimum wage and fix absolutely nothing.

avatar4321
08-30-2007, 03:11 PM
I thought that was Jesus's main message?

I thought he wanted people to care for each other?

He did. Just not with other peoples money. He was for actual charity, not government programs to pretend to fix the problem and really exagerbate it.

I dont see how artificially raising the minimum wage is caring for anyone when the women earning it is in a worse position with it higher than she is with it lower.

I dont see how its caring for someone to use a woman for a political purpose but fail to even point out simple things she can do to fix her situation.

truthmatters
08-30-2007, 03:13 PM
First, a number of those children at home are already over 18. They could get jobs for themselves if they really had to.

Second, you seem to be ignoring the point where we actually fix the problem by showing her how to manage money in her life and how to self improve her situation. You know actually fix the problem rather than artificially raise the mimimum wage and fix absolutely nothing.

This is not just about this one person. This is about all the people who these programs are set up to help.

You either help them stay fed while you teach them or they will not be able to be taught.

No matter how you do it this will cost money.

The idea of spending money up front(just like in the commercial world) and then reap the benifits of saved money later.

That is what these programs are desiged for.

The other portions of the plan never gets voted in because to some people a momentary tax cut is more important than the education and school improvement that it would take to accomplish this.

If we really did what it would take to fix the problem we would be reaping the benifits of lower taxes and more revenue for the many many years.

Nukeman
08-30-2007, 03:52 PM
This is not just about this one person. This is about all the people who these programs are set up to help.

You either help them stay fed while you teach them or they will not be able to be taught.

No matter how you do it this will cost money.

The idea of spending money up front(just like in the commercial world) and then reap the benifits of saved money later.

That is what these programs are desiged for.

The other portions of the plan never gets voted in because to some people a momentary tax cut is more important than the education and school improvement that it would take to accomplish this.

If we really did what it would take to fix the problem we would be reaping the benifits of lower taxes and more revenue for the many many years.

Your right on a lot of your points but unfortunately a lot of people are happy living on assistance.

In order for them to take advantage of the "education" they have to have the drive to do so. You can not pay enough money to instill this in some people.

Nukeman
08-30-2007, 04:04 PM
But Nuke, if the world was perfect, and everybody went off and helped themselves, then why did God ask us to give mercy to the poor?

What is the Mercy we are suppose to be giving them? What is Mercy and not judgement, in this passage of scripture?

I struggle with this and with understanding it all, but it has to have SOME meaning or intent behind the passage....that can relate to the times of today?

jd


p.s. This thread is so long, you are correct that I did not read it! :)

Do you not feel that mercy is given to these people in the form of assistance for education, housing, and food. The average tax payer out there doesn't question where their money is spent they feel it is for the greater good in general and if that means the social programs than thats great, however; if your going to continue to stand there with your hand out and refuse to attempt to help your self why should anyone else continue to do so.

God said to show mercy on the poor he did not say to place yourself in poverty to do so. God also frowns upon Sloth.

I dont think God meant for us to enable people to maintain a unproductive life just so we can say when we die "see I showed mercy on the poor" I think God would than ask "what did you do to help him help himself".

This is where a lot of lib's lose sight of what conservatives are attempting to do. You can not throw endles amounts of money and expect people to stop taking it. You have to set a goals, without which people left to their own devices would not complete their education or attempt to find a job.

Its not a matter of not willign to help the poor, its a matter of enabeling a type of bahavior that is detremental to both society and the individual in question, also if they have children it affects them greatly as well..

JohnDoe
08-30-2007, 08:17 PM
Do you not feel that mercy is given to these people in the form of assistance for education, housing, and food. The average tax payer out there doesn't question where their money is spent they feel it is for the greater good in general and if that means the social programs than thats great, however; if your going to continue to stand there with your hand out and refuse to attempt to help your self why should anyone else continue to do so.

God said to show mercy on the poor he did not say to place yourself in poverty to do so. God also frowns upon Sloth.

I dont think God meant for us to enable people to maintain a unproductive life just so we can say when we die "see I showed mercy on the poor" I think God would than ask "what did you do to help him help himself".

This is where a lot of lib's lose sight of what conservatives are attempting to do. You can not throw endles amounts of money and expect people to stop taking it. You have to set a goals, without which people left to their own devices would not complete their education or attempt to find a job.

Its not a matter of not willign to help the poor, its a matter of enabeling a type of bahavior that is detremental to both society and the individual in question, also if they have children it affects them greatly as well..

First, let me be clear that i disagree with the opinions on this board that believe most poor people in this country are lazy, because MOST of the poor in this country are the WORKING poor, not the jobless. I think presuming that most people that are poor because of their own lazyness just might be doing exactly what James 2 warns us about...judging.

Second, I have a hard time with the conflict involved with aborting ones child or bearing ones child, and how it relates to the single mothers receiving welfare, who are the biggest sector of welfare recipiants. I find it hard to deny their children the money needed to feed them or put a roof over their head, because one thing these women chose to do THAT WAS RIGHT, was to bear their children and to NOT abort them....imo... you may differ with this, but it is how i feel about it, and strongly at that!!!

------------------------------------

But getting back to your post Nuke, I don't disagree that what we ultimately want to do is to help these people help themselves, as YOU stated and others have expressed.... and i have to admit, it sounds great, like a good logical stance....setting goals and all.... but i ask, HOW?

What should be done, overall, to help these people help themselves? What are the republican ideas with specifics, that will do this....not just, what i believe, sounds like good, but utopian, talk?

I think it is much more complicated, and harder to achieve than it sounds in words!

jd

DragonStryk72
09-21-2007, 09:15 PM
What about the childern in the home?

Do we let them just starve and go without because this woman has made mistakes?

Hell no, we put them in houses with people who have some sense of responsibility. trust me, there are more than enough people in this country looking to adopt, it should not be that big a problem.

5stringJeff
09-22-2007, 07:19 AM
Hell no, we put them in houses with people who have some sense of responsibility. trust me, there are more than enough people in this country looking to adopt, it should not be that big a problem.

I'm not arguing that there aren't couples looking to adopt, but I don't think we should take kids from people just because they are poor.

mrg666
10-14-2007, 12:46 PM
I'm not arguing that there aren't couples looking to adopt, but I don't think we should take kids from people just because they are poor.

does being poor qualify them as unfit to parent ?
maybe maddona or mrs pitt will come to the rescue but oh no they have to be impoverished 3rd world ( not actually orphaned )

5stringJeff
10-14-2007, 04:51 PM
does being poor qualify them as unfit to parent ?

No.

avatar4321
10-14-2007, 07:10 PM
I know ive said it before, but I really think this was one of the best threads we ever had.