US Wealth ... US Poverty

Senior Chief said:
the poverty level in the U.S. is based on what is considered that level by the government or other groups.

I'm in the poverty level because I don't make $250,000 a year. That's what I think it would take to give me everything I think I deserve. The Government needs to kick it up for me.
Click to expand...



Why do you have about 500 kids to support?

You know life must be easy when everything is a straight line.
 
MontyB said:
Why do you have about 500 kids to support?

You know life must be easy when everything is a straight line.
Click to expand...

Get your head in the game, this isn't about me. It's aobut the lack of understanding of what true poverty is.

Just for an example, a laborer in India working for a large company that pays the best wages in the region, makes $648.00 a year.

If you would like to buy a jar of premium grape jam it would cost over $7.00 for a 12 oz. jar.

Life is simple for ALL Americans. There are resources for them to have the basics. Those that do not take advantage of them are not poor, they are stupid. Those in India don't have those resources.
 
I all of the sudden have a very clear undestanding of Isolationists and I think I am starting to like them more and more.

Ok Monty and Ollie, let's make a deal right here right now. The United States will stop giving funds to the United Nations, 25% of the United Nation's yearly budget, because according to you we have such a large poverty problem here and in return your nations can go bancrupt trying to maintain all these programs we have been paying for and all because you couldn't keep your mouths shut. You wanted us to fix a problem that didn't exist and now we are so you can face the consequences for your actions, good luck.
 
Last edited:
Damien435 said:
I all of the sudden have a very clear undestanding of Isolationists and I think I am starting to like them more and more.

Ok Monty and Ollie, let's make a deal right here right now. The United States will stop giving funds to the United Nations, 25% of the United Nation's yearly budget, because according to you we have such a large poverty problem here and in return your nations can go bancrupt trying to maintain all these programs we have been paying for and all because you couldn't keep your mouths shut. You wanted us to fix a problem that didn't exist and now we are so you can face the consequences for your actions, good luck.
Click to expand...

I have to admit after evaluating both yours and senior chiefs arguments I am also becoming an ardent supporter of US isolationism, I mean hell are we even arguing the same point?
 
MontyB said:
I have to admit after evaluating both yours and senior chiefs arguments I am also becoming an ardent supporter of US isolationism, I mean hell are we even arguing the same point?
Click to expand...

The basic argument here is the misunderstanding of what poverty is.

Our definition of poverty in the U.S. pales in comparison with what abject poverty actually is.
 
Monty, you say, there are levels of poverty- accepted. It is a relative thing. All said and done, a poor person in the US, is poor, only in relation to the general populace. It is uptp the govt. to decide the poverty line. If it were determined in relation to people in Africa, then there would be no poor American.
Hypothetically, in a nation of billionaires, a millionaire would be 'poor', yet it is a joke if u feel that nation has a problem.
 
Ollie, have you read this... http://www.sfi.dk/graphics/SFI/Pdf/Working_papers/WP29MHPovertyDynamics.pdf
??

If not, you should. It answers your basic tenet as to why the dichotomy of wealth and poverty can exist in a country like the US.

Some highlights...

That poverty and inequality measures based on annual income data are far from revealing the whole story about the distribution of income in a society, is now widely recognized.
Click to expand...

it is also necessary to consider income mobility, because low wage is a very poor indicator of low income,
Click to expand...

There has not been obtained any consensus about the definition of an appropriate poverty line, which may cause implicit poverty lines in the different countries to differ.
Click to expand...


At the aggregate level, mobility seems to be higher in Germany and Denmark than in the USA, but with some convergence over time. Looking at parameters or estimated effects, there is no clear pattern of differences among welfare state choices. But combining populations and estimated parameters of different countries to calculate counter factual conditional probabilities of poverty, lends some support to the view that the European system (represented by Denmark and Germany) promotes poverty persistence, whereas the system in the USA changes individual behaviour in order to protect themselves from poverty persistence.​
Click to expand...

I hope this wets your appetite to read all 39 pages so we can have an intelligent discussion rather than exchanging pot shots over "perceived" realities and skewed statistics.​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Another tidbit I cam across while snooping about was this...​



And here's one final thought looking at this list of equality... how many of these countries have been blessed by being able to spend their GDP on welfare programs since they were being guarded by the military of the US?​

How many would be part of the third Reich if it weren't for the US?​

How many of these countries would still be a satelite of the Soviet Union were it not for the US?​

So answer me this... why y'all be hatin?​
 
bulldogg said:
And here's one final thought looking at this list of equality... how many of these countries have been blessed by being able to spend their GDP on welfare programs since they were being guarded by the military of the US?...How many would be part of the third Reich if it weren't for the US?...How many of these countries would still be a satelite of the Soviet Union were it not for the US?
Click to expand...


All of this is wise, from a certain (myopic) perspective. I do not particularly care about comparisons or intellectual games. When you (as a human) are unable to receive the best health care possible, as is easily possible according to the resources and the talent, the system is out of control. The US government is as accountable as the German, British or French. We could argue that the Indians (or Blacks) in the US were treated the same as Hitler's criminal regime...all given a diseased blanket full of typhoid fever, but we won't. The super-long-gone past is unimportant in these discussions. We are talking about the here and now. Today, the down and out German, Brit or Frenchie has a better chance of basic care. The hospitals are obligated to treat the morons and the fools.

I will give you an example about Germany...not one that I like. A drunken bumb on basic detox (is. alcohol overdose) without insurance will be treated irregardless of the costs. That is the Hippocratic way of things. I know docs who hate it. I know docs who love it. The system gets warped nevertheless. I say: the wallet should not dictate who gets "served". Society is obligated. Its called HUMAN RIGHTS!
 
Ollie Garchy said:
Today, the down and out German, Brit or Frenchie has a better chance of basic care. The hospitals are obligated to treat the morons and the fools.

I will give you an example about Germany...not one that I like. A drunken bumb on basic detox (is. alcohol overdose) without insurance will be treated irregardless of the costs. That is the Hippocratic way of things. I know docs who hate it. I know docs who love it. The system gets warped nevertheless. I say: the wallet should not dictate who gets "served". Society is obligated. Its called HUMAN RIGHTS!
Click to expand...

This is totally a circular argument and we all can sit here all year proving/disproving each other. You're pretty much saying Germany's/EU's county hospitals > American county hospitals. There are no absolutes and there will always be exceptions. As for your example with the alcoholic, America does have programs like that. The US has AA and various other community-based programs/clinics to handle that sort of thing and is directly billed to the state. I'm pretty sure there are some German/EU along with American hospitals that will turn away an impoverished patient. In the same light, there will be those American and EU hospitals that will readily admit them.
 
Ollie Garchy said:
All of this is wise, from a certain (myopic) perspective. I do not particularly care about comparisons or intellectual games. When you (as a human) are unable to receive the best health care possible, as is easily possible according to the resources and the talent, the system is out of control. The US government is as accountable as the German, British or French. We could argue that the Indians (or Blacks) in the US were treated the same as Hitler's criminal regime...all given a diseased blanket full of typhoid fever, but we won't. The super-long-gone past is unimportant in these discussions. We are talking about the here and now. Today, the down and out German, Brit or Frenchie has a better chance of basic care. The hospitals are obligated to treat the morons and the fools.

I will give you an example about Germany...not one that I like. A drunken bumb on basic detox (is. alcohol overdose) without insurance will be treated irregardless of the costs. That is the Hippocratic way of things. I know docs who hate it. I know docs who love it. The system gets warped nevertheless. I say: the wallet should not dictate who gets "served". Society is obligated. Its called HUMAN RIGHTS!
Click to expand...

So you didn't read it.
 
Smallpox infested blankets were almost certainly never given to the indians. There are only two references to the use of smallpox infested blankets, both of those are in the form of a "I wish" at the end of a memo from a British officer. Never were any orders given to do this, never was it written down in a diary or journal that most officers of the time kept and no official records have been found. It's a myth, it was made up in the 20th century by a group pusing for more indian rights. (Because the same rates as everyone else isn't good enough I guess.)

You really need to amend your statement. People will always get the best care possible, the only issue is the level of that care. Tell you Ollie, you come over to America, slit your wrists in front of a hospital and rush in with no form of identification on you at all. See that your BS is quite false. The hospital will save your life first and foremost then worry about how you will pay for their services.
 
Are you kidding me.... Ok I was an EMT for 2 years any medical professional MUST provide care if they are found not to they lose their license/certifications, can face fines, and possible imprisonment...A hospital BY LAW in the USA CAN NOT turn away anyone...

Example a friend of mine just go stabbed he has no insurance, his lung was punctured and he was brought to two different hospitals he spent three days there and is not fine...cost 48 grand he has to come up with...guess what they take payments...

You are so clueless that it isn’t funny if you think a US hospital will turn anyone down; they can not...See most professions have this thing called ethics....Basically if you have been taught skills it is then your duty to use them and provide care...

Further more you want to take about poverty then tell me this, why then do we have phrases like; too nice, too kind, too generous....Funny?
 
Damien435 said:
Smallpox infested blankets were almost certainly never given to the indians. There are only two references to the use of smallpox infested blankets, both of those are in the form of a "I wish" at the end of a memo from a British officer. Never were any orders given to do this, never was it written down in a diary or journal that most officers of the time kept and no official records have been found. It's a myth, it was made up in the 20th century by a group pusing for more indian rights. (Because the same rates as everyone else isn't good enough I guess.)

You really need to amend your statement. People will always get the best care possible, the only issue is the level of that care. Tell you Ollie, you come over to America, slit your wrists in front of a hospital and rush in with no form of identification on you at all. See that your BS is quite false. The hospital will save your life first and foremost then worry about how you will pay for their services.
Click to expand...

There were no blankets handed out. There was no repression and death. No genocide. There was only acceptance and tolerance. And the US is still under indigenous N. American Indian control. The N. American Indian sits together with Bush and Gates and they make all the decisions. They have rights...sure, hoot some more glue, dude.
 
Ollie Garchy said:
There were no blankets handed out. There was no repression and death. No genocide. There was only acceptance and tolerance. And the US is still under indigenous N. American Indian control. The N. American Indian sits together with Bush and Gates and they make all the decisions. They have rights...sure, hoot some more glue, dude.
Click to expand...

I live and work close to the Oklahoma border where the Nations of the Chickasaw, Choctaw, Cherokee, and Caddo are located. There are a lot of American Indians who work and live in this area, and many in high positions. They pay no taxes, own their land, have tribal council governments, have free education and hospitals. Many are multimillionaires from Indian casino and bingo incomes on their land. Most tribes distribute proceeds to the nation as a whole.

Of course their former life as hunter-gatherers can't survive in a modern world, that's ludicrous to even mention. The biggest problem that the white Europeans caused the Indians was migrating into tribal territories and displacing hunting grounds with farms and ranches. Most tribes were migratory and followed game and weather to more plentiful areas. That lifestyle required a vast amount of land for hunting. When the land was turned into farms, which could support more people with less area, the Indian lost his ability to roam and more importantly, the American Buffalo was killed to near extinction. Almost everything they owned and used came from that one animal.

It's still the same old story today. Family farms are displaced by towns, towns by cities, and so on. Progress killed the Indian's way of life, not a single action such as diseased blankets.
 
Ollie, at one point I figured you for an intellectual human being. Have you relegated intelligent thought and discussion in favour of "common" knowledge and sarcasm?
 
Donkey said:
Are you kidding me.... Ok I was an EMT for 2 years any medical professional MUST provide care if they are found not to they lose their license/certifications, can face fines, and possible imprisonment...A hospital BY LAW in the USA CAN NOT turn away anyone...

Example a friend of mine just go stabbed he has no insurance, his lung was punctured and he was brought to two different hospitals he spent three days there and is not fine...cost 48 grand he has to come up with...guess what they take payments...

You are so clueless that it isn’t funny if you think a US hospital will turn anyone down; they can not...See most professions have this thing called ethics....Basically if you have been taught skills it is then your duty to use them and provide care...

Further more you want to take about poverty then tell me this, why then do we have phrases like; too nice, too kind, too generous....Funny?
Click to expand...

Heh that's what I've been trying to say all this time. I used to live in LA, CA. South LA is known for its gang problem. And yet, gang members consistently get treated even if they have no money. The emergency room's wait time may kill some, but that's the price you pay when 366490572389 people want free healthcare.
 
Ollie Garchy said:
There were no blankets handed out. There was no repression and death. No genocide. There was only acceptance and tolerance. And the US is still under indigenous N. American Indian control. The N. American Indian sits together with Bush and Gates and they make all the decisions. They have rights...sure, hoot some more glue, dude.
Click to expand...

I never said we didn't oppress, sterilize and try to "cleanse" ourselves of Native Americans, I just said we never gave them smallpox infected blankets (No guarantees about the British though). Smallpox can be spread through the air too, giving the natives blankets wouldn't be necessary, all that was necessary was a handshake and a simple "Hello."

Columbus did not hand out smallpox infected blankets, neither did the conquistadors, yet somehow diseases brought to the Americas by European travelers spead like wildfire through the Americas so that in the time between Columbus' arrivals and the Pilgrims settling in New England over 20 million natives had died in North and South America.

I'm not ignorant about my country's history, I know what my country did to become great and I would not do it any other way. Right now we are the most powerful, richest nation in the world, we obviously did something right somewhere down the line and I will not apologize for that.

Indians today have just as many rights as every other American while having fewer of the "responsibilities" that most Americans do. Being immune from federal taxes while still being able to vote for the President is a claim that very few people can make in America. I believe the only groups that can make that claim are Natives and Puerto Rico, I can't remember if Guam and Somoia get a vote in the electoral college or not. Not only that but the tribes, in most states, are the only ones allowed to operate Casinos which are huge money in America. I wish I could say all the nice things Missileer said about the tribes here in South Dakota, but it isn't true. The tribes here have horrible leadership and just don't have their crap together in general. There is a town in Nebraska, can't remember the name, but the liquor store there sells over 1.2 million cans of Bud per year because the tribal governments have outlawed the sell of alcohol on the reservation.

BTW, I believe the word you were looking for was "huff" not "hoot." I don't know who told you hoot was the correct word but you need to slap them.
 
Um you do realize we bought the land from the Indians (not all but a lot).... Well known example Manhattan....

Do you know that a huge majority of all State, County, Town, River, Parks, and so on are Indian words?? I wonder why if we hated them sooooooo much we named everything about them...I mean surely you name the place you live in the spirit of someone you hate!?~
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top