2008 Presidential Candidates

[The Ozzman]

That and inflation

 

[Pessimism]

No, they aren't. They have food to eat, clothes to wear, shelter, clean water, and access to a fairly high level of health care. The American 'poor' live far higher on the hog than the average citizens of most societies on earth. We have other things to spend money on that dumping it into the greedy hands of our least productive citizens.

Do you even live in America, or are you just a fucking retard?

Also, nice way of completely side stepping my statements.
Just because there are "sufficient resources" available for the poor, that does not mean said poor are actually receiving said resources.

Also, I never made the statement that "clothes make the man", I said a bad outward appearance (something many people cannot control due to a complete lack of clean utilities) can have a negative impact when trying to get any type of work. I even said that substance abuse is a large problem among the homeless (most notable near grand central station near Chinatown here); and for your information, I am not distinguishing between those with "relatively" clean mental states and those who are bat shit insane. I'm going strictly by income, and in this sense all your arguments fail miserably. The only thing I can agree with you is that shelter systems do help those who take advantage of them, unfortunately many do not.

And what fucking healthcare do the poor have access too?

How is it 'contemptible' or 'trollish' to want resources directed toward more productive segments of society, rather than always dwelling on the plight of the least capable and least proactive portion of the citizenry?

You know, socio-darwinism died for a reason; and your argument is the same as theirs, the only difference is you somehow correlate economic prosperity to human value. A lot of people however, choose to believe that a society is only as strong as its weakest link...




On a side note: The water from water fountains is actually quite contaminated depending on the area; the perfect example I can bring up is my own community college - when the water was tested all around campus from the drinking fountains, it was shown to have more bacteria and dirt than the water from the toilets.

But that's alright, since the homeless obviously have everything else nearly perfect going for them (being completely cared for and all), some dirty water shouldn't be too much to handle.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Once again, he is not worth debating, mainly due to his misrepresentation/misappropriation of points and general lack of logic (as I evinced earlier).

 

[Pessimism]

Yeah, but this is pissing me off

I will stop though, seeing as I don't feel like continuing on with this either.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I'm about ready to stop trying to prove that better parenting and attentiveness to children's specific needs when going through high school will help decrease the likelihood of school shootings (hint it will). SOG (Falco?)'s point is that changing how schools work in their entirety will better fix the problem .

 

[Scourge of God]

Also, nice way of completely side stepping my statements.
Just because there are "sufficient resources" available for the poor, that does not mean said poor are actually receiving said resources.

I challenge you to find a single documented example of ANYONE starving to death in the US in the last 50 years. If there are lots of people in genuine, life-threatening need, that shouldn't be too hard to document.

Seriously though, 'poverty' in the US is ridiculously wealthy by the standards of most of the world. The poverty line in the US is $10,120 for one person (source). The median worldwide individual income is around $7,000 a year, and this figure is itself vastly skewed by the presence of very wealthy countries like the US. In actual fact, 81% of the world's population is concentrated in nations with median annual incomes of less than that $7,000 figure (source).

In other words, you can make nearly 50% more per year than the average person on earth and still be considered 'poor' in the United States. With the exception of crackheads and crazies, there are no genuinely poor people in the US. Get out, see the world. Go somewhere with real poverty, then stop crying for the privileged folks in the US just looking for a handout.

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Regardless of how absurd it is to say that "no one is poor in America", it doesn't even fucking matter that they have it better than the poor in other countries. There should not be Americans who are so far behind the rest of American society that they are considered poor. This country is supposed to be better than that. Saying "oh well it's not as bad as other countries" is NO reason to not fix a problem.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Regardless of how absurd it is to say that "no one is poor in America", it doesn't even fucking matter that they have it better than the poor in other countries.

Yep, I mentioned this to a different degree earlier, claiming that his point has zero consequence in the context of this discussion.

 

[skeptik]

I challenge you to find a single documented example of ANYONE starving to death in the US in the last 50 years. If there are lots of people in genuine, life-threatening need, that shouldn't be too hard to document.

Seriously though, 'poverty' in the US is ridiculously wealthy by the standards of most of the world. The poverty line in the US is $10,120 for one person (source). The median worldwide individual income is around $7,000 a year, and this figure is itself vastly skewed by the presence of very wealthy countries like the US. In actual fact, 81% of the world's population is concentrated in nations with median annual incomes of less than that $7,000 figure (source).

In other words, you can make nearly 50% more per year than the average person on earth and still be considered 'poor' in the United States. With the exception of crackheads and crazies, there are no genuinely poor people in the US. Get out, see the world. Go somewhere with real poverty, then stop crying for the privileged folks in the US just looking for a handout.

You're kind of ignoring the fact that $10,120 for an average intake of basic necessities in the US is the equivalent of a far less sum in most other areas of the world. There is no universal currency, and certainly no universal set of fixed prices. You're also of course vastly overdramatizing the discrepancy between the uses of the word 'need' in economic relations and in a more general sense to the point where the entire issue has to be altered for your amusement. The fact of the matter is that "need" with reference to US socioeconomic value does not mean "need" in the traditional sense. The usage of the word need in this sense is heavily nuanced. This is pretty obvious, and I'm sure you realize this, so why don't we just move on at this point?

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Because SOG enjoys derailing threads with mindless sidetracks, baseless comparisons, and false analogies?

 

[Valerie]

Please don't close my thread because of him

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Didn't even cross my mind.

 

[Scourge of God]

You're kind of ignoring the fact that $10,120 for an average intake of basic necessities in the US is the equivalent of a far less sum in most other areas of the world.

Horseshit. Food prices in the US are the lowest in the world, and the cost of housing is lower than in almost any other developed country. Unlike most nations in the developing world, clean water is not only universally but cheaply available in the United States. By any reasonable measure, the US is one of the cheapest countries to live in if you're just talking basic necessities. Living up to the standard that many Americans seem to believe is their right is, of course, another story, but it has nothing to do with whether fundamental needs are being met.

You're also of course vastly overdramatizing the discrepancy between the uses of the word 'need' in economic relations and in a more general sense to the point where the entire issue has to be altered for your amusement. The fact of the matter is that "need" with reference to US socioeconomic value does not mean "need" in the traditional sense.

Poor people don't NEED privately owned houses. They don't NEED personal automobiles. They don't NEED plasma screen tv's, internet access, the latest Jordans, brand name jeans or any of the other luxuries which Americans have come to demand as a baseline lifestyle. Unlike most of you here, I've actually lived on a sub-poverty income. Yeah, it's not much fun. Yeah, you don't have the same sort of leisure and purchase opportunities that you would like to have. Sure, it's not as cool as being rich, but you're not starving. You can keep a roof over your head. You can meet your basic needs and still have a little extra from time to time to meet what are simply desires. All it takes is discipline and rudimentary budgeting skills.

While the rest of you were out sucking at mama's teat, I was living on about $7,900/yr of take home pay while attending college. A couple of years back, I spent 7 months in Angola doing contract work and saw real, actual, poverty. I mean the poverty of basic, fundamental human needs unmet. The poverty of whole families picking through the garbage cans in the 'foreign' district trying to scrape up tonight's meal, not the 'poverty' of having to wait a week for the welfare check to arrive before picking up some hot new kicks.

Bottom line: if you want to redefine 'need' to encompass the whole range of non-vital consumer goods, don't get indignant when someone points out that no one needs to have this crap.

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

Blah blah I've struggles therefore I'm right! Please. Were you living out on the streets? If not, you're "experience" means exactly jack shit. There are Americans who can not afford to feed or house themselves. This is a fact, not matter how much you try to deny, justify or downplay it.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Poor people don't NEED privately owned houses. They don't NEED personal automobiles. They don't NEED plasma screen tv's, internet access, the latest Jordans, brand name jeans or any of the other luxuries which Americans have come to demand as a baseline lifestyle.

What the fuck? Yes, we know, you've said this about 50 times before. However, it is also extremely beside the point by now.

Get over it.

Bottom line: if you want to redefine 'need' to encompass the whole range of non-vital consumer goods, don't get indignant when someone points out that no one needs to have this crap.

Because that is so incredibly relevant. Get the fuck off this board

 

[Scourge of God]

Blah blah I've struggles therefore I'm right! Please. Were you living out on the streets? If not, you're "experience" means exactly jack shit. There are Americans who can not afford to feed or house themselves. This is a fact, not matter how much you try to deny, justify or downplay it.

The only people who can't afford to feed or house themselves are the chronically homeless, who, overwhelmingly, can't hold jobs because of their substance abuse. They aren't innocent victims, they're the creators of their own circumstances, and they already receive considerable assistance both public and private.

 

[Scourge of God]

What the fuck? Yes, we know, you've said this about 50 times before. However, it is also extremely beside the point by now.

How is it 'beside the point'? If the point is to meet the needs of Americans, then we've already succeeded and don't need to dump money into meeting the desires of those that can't buy luxuries on their own dime. People should be honest about what they're talking about, not hide behind the rhetoric of 'need' when what they're really after is a levelling of lifestyles for lower-income Americans.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Because you keep bringing up things about other countries, and also keep talking about how people don't need plasma TVs etc. We all know this. Make an argument against the actual points.

 

[Scourge of God]

Because you keep bringing up things about other countries, and also keep talking about how people don't need plasma TVs etc. We all know this. Make an argument against the actual points.

Other countries are entirely relevant, because they highlight just how far from reality this discussion has strayed. Everyone in America has their needs met, so why are we talking as if more money needs to be spent accomplishing what has already been accomplished? Spend the money on something useful, like, you know, preventing the next great mass extinction. We don't need more money for the 'poor' (of which America has virtually none), we need more money for ecological preservation, more money for projects that improve the lives of everyone instead of rewarding personal failure. More money for real education. More money for cultural projects. If poor people want nicer stuff, fuck 'em. They can either do without or find the money on their own.

 

[ThisIsACoolName]

The only people who can't afford to feed or house themselves are the chronically homeless, who, overwhelmingly, can't hold jobs because of their substance abuse. They aren't innocent victims, they're the creators of their own circumstances, and they already receive considerable assistance both public and private.

Oh, what a shitty god damn argument. You belong back in the fucking 1920's, man. I can't believe there are still people that actually think this way.

Nevermind how fucking absurd it is to make the sweeping generalization that anyone who is homeless must be a drug addict- which, of course, it's absolute pure horse shit- it's even more absurd to say that those people are undeserving of help, and it is still even more absurd to say that those people have "already received considerable assistance". That's got to be one of the most fucking pathetically naive things I've ever read. Are you joking or do you seriously think that?

Essentially, you're saying that, universally, anyone who does need help receives it and, therefore, no longer needs help, and that anyone who still needs it doesn't deserve it. What a pathetic, sad, antiquated way of thinking you have.