Economic Inequality

keeponrockin

Blockhead wrote:

All I see in here is people want to stop people from getting richer... What a stupid way of thinking.
Why don't you focus your efforts on helping the Poor.
I saw one slide that showed the success of college graduates...
WHy not educate the parents of these poor childen on how important H.S. and College graduations are?
Educate them on how sucessful people can become by graduating school instead of droping out.
There are no secretes, people that succeed take mostly the same path that the poor people CHOOSE not to continue.
And talking about socialistic countries, not everthing is "Causation = Correlation" If I said look at Sweden for an example and how sucessful they are, and they are mostly a Socialist country you could also point to their race and how it is 99% caucasian, is that also the "Causation" for their success? I don't think so.

The difference is, socialism is an economic policy and obviously effects the economy. Race does not.

gimmesometruth27

Blockhead wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

i don't know about anyone else on here, but when i look at the econimic success or failure of a country the first thing that i look at is not race :?

You seem to have a hard time comprehending...
I was giving an example as to why "causation /= correlation" in terms of socialist countries. Great job addressing my other points. :roll:

you are right, i do not see how race would correlate to or cause economic success in other countries...

i can see things like education and overall economy and people's incomes as correlating with economic success, but i doubt that a country having 95% white people being a cause for that.

you seem to get angry when people do not address your points, now you know how a great many of us feel when you do the same. to be honest, i did not see a point to address, and even if i did respond you would dismiss my comments out of hand. so i guess its all a wash, right?

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

There are no secretes, people that succeed take mostly the same path that the poor people CHOOSE not to continue.

You're kidding right? Poor don't always CHOOSE not to take these paths. Thats the whole point i think you're missing here. Many of the poor dont have the same opportunities that the rich have, just from where/who/how they were born into.

Then who Chooses?
What opportunities do the poor not have that other people have?
THey have school/healthcare/ect.
Its YOUR responsibility to succeed in school, if you happen to have strict/education emphisis parents then consider your self lucky, as they are helping you along the way to succeed. But, you can't just dismiss peoples responsibilities because they had shitty parents. At what point is it the kids responsibility?
Pleave provide me some opportunities that the poor do not get that others do?
In fact, they are helped out more by lower admission standars/school diversity/gender in terms of getting into college.

gimmesometruth27

Blockhead wrote:

Then who Chooses?
What opportunities do the poor not have that other people have?
THey have school/healthcare/ect.
Its YOUR responsibility to succeed in school, if you happen to have strict/education emphisis parents then consider your self lucky, as they are helping you along the way to succeed. But, you can't just dismiss peoples responsibilities because they had shitty parents. At what point is it the kids responsibility?
Pleave provide me some opportunities that the poor do not get that others do?
In fact, they are helped out more by lower admission standars/school diversity/gender in terms of getting into college.

1. nobody chooses. luck of the draw. i was lucky i was born into an intact family that valued education. i am lucky that i ws a planned child and that my parents for the most part could afford me. my friends were not so lucky. they were born into families that emphasized getting a job in high school and entering the workforce immediately out of high school, construction, labor, etc. jobs where you did not have to have a degree. to them college was a luxury not a necessity. and many people in the lower classes view college as that because they can not and will never be able to afford it, even with loans.

2. not everyone has health care coverage. to get medicaid you have to qualify for it, just like you have to qualify for life insurance. and those medicaid benefits are going away. look at the proposed budget. the poor do not have cars, they must rely on mass transit to get to places like the grocery store and the doctor's appointments. don't tell me lack of transportation is some sort of an advantage or something. also, medicaid is shitty, shitty insurance. we get maybe 1/3 of what we bill medicaid and we write off the other 2/3 of that money. that equates to over $200,000 a year just in our practice that we write off. medicaid reimburses pennies on the dollar, and as a result most doctors, especially surgeons will not see medicaid patients because the liability you assume to treat them is more than the reimbursement they will receive from medicaid. i would not want to bet my license on a risky procedure if my liability exceeded the money i would make, but i work for the only orthopedic physicians in south western illinois that even takes medicaid, and we only do that because my doctors here believe it is the right thing to do. not for financial gain. someone has to see these people, so that someone is us. advantage people who can afford private health insurance, NOT THE POOR ON MEDICAID.

i will answer the rest of this when i get more time.

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

There are no secretes, people that succeed take mostly the same path that the poor people CHOOSE not to continue.

You're kidding right? Poor don't always CHOOSE not to take these paths. Thats the whole point i think you're missing here. Many of the poor dont have the same opportunities that the rich have, just from where/who/how they were born into.

Then who Chooses?
What opportunities do the poor not have that other people have?
THey have school/healthcare/ect.
Its YOUR responsibility to succeed in school, if you happen to have strict/education emphisis parents then consider your self lucky, as they are helping you along the way to succeed. But, you can't just dismiss peoples responsibilities because they had shitty parents. At what point is it the kids responsibility?
Pleave provide me some opportunities that the poor do not get that others do?
In fact, they are helped out more by lower admission standars/school diversity/gender in terms of getting into college.

Thats the point. A lot of the time, we dont choose, but it chooses you.
Poor people typically dont have access to the necessities of daily living such as food, clothing, shelter, or safe drinking water. Often they have a lack of access to information, education, health care. Yes, education -- like you said yourself, teachres dont want to stick around in your wifes school. The level of education there is differrnt from the "A" school down the street in a nice neighborhood.

you should also google: "cycle of poverty"
"Children are most at the mercy of the cycle of poverty. Because a child is dependent on his or her guardian."

polaris_x

i think the chart said 21.9% of children in the US live in poverty ... second only to Mexico ... hardly the stuff of a Great Country i'd say ...

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

i think the chart said 21.9% of children in the US live in poverty ... second only to Mexico ... hardly the stuff of a Great Country i'd say ...

Brought to you by the great socialism progam - WELFARE.
If you are all so concerned by the ammount of poor children and their lack of opportunities, you would think you would be a little concerned with the nonexistant regulation/consequences of these welfare recipients.
They are the ones to keep this cycle of poverty turning.
You might actually be helping these kids if you teach/educate these parents on responsibilities/consequences for their actions.
But no, Im the bad guy for suggesting that and I am "dehumanizing" them. :roll:
Just keep giving them money and rewarding (with money) for having another child, that seems to be working great!

polaris_x

lemme get this straight ...

21.9% of US children live in poverty BECAUSE of welfare!??

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Thats the point. A lot of the time, we dont choose, but it chooses you.
Poor people typically dont have access to the necessities of daily living such as food, clothing, shelter, or safe drinking water. Often they have a lack of access to information, education, health care. Yes, education -- like you said yourself, teachres dont want to stick around in your wifes school. The level of education there is differrnt from the "A" school down the street in a nice neighborhood.

you should also google: "cycle of poverty"
"Children are most at the mercy of the cycle of poverty. Because a child is dependent on his or her guardian."

Teachers don't want to stick around (not becase their poor) because the kids ASSULT teachers and you can't discipline them unless you actually want to press charges. The schools just let them slid by because their "homelife is bad". That is bullshit. If you can't correct the child in school (who is certainly not being disciplined at home) then your just contributing to this cycle of no consequences. If they don't recieve consequences at home and they Won't at public schools where are they going to learn it.
I know you can't tell them how to parent but I would gadly pay into a system that gives them incentives (money,food,clothes,dinners,etc..) for their childs conduct in school/grades in school/staying out of trouble.
In the Freakanomics book I read they had an incentive program for students in a public school and would give them $50 if they brought up their grades. It mostly worked, but it seemed to work best at the homes where the parents were involved more witht he school work. One parent said she would double what the program was giving her son. I would gadly give more money to install incentive programs so these kids can make money and take pride in their work. But just handing a check over and expecting them to make the best decisions for them or their children is not the way to HELP people.

JonnyPistachio

Blockhead wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

i think the chart said 21.9% of children in the US live in poverty ... second only to Mexico ... hardly the stuff of a Great Country i'd say ...

Brought to you by the great socialism progam - WELFARE.
If you are all so concerned by the ammount of poor children and their lack of opportunities, you would think you would be a little concerned with the nonexistant regulation/consequences of these welfare recipients.
They are the ones to keep this cycle of poverty turning.
You might actually be helping these kids if you teach/educate these parents on responsibilities/consequences for their actions.
But no, Im the bad guy for suggesting that and I am "dehumanizing" them. :roll:
Just keep giving them money and rewarding (with money) for having another child, that seems to be working great!

No need to get in a huff because you learned something today.
By the way, it is once again becoming clearer that you have resentment and hostility toward poor families. You are the first one to bring up welfare here. We were talking about the gap between the rich and poor -- nobody even mentioned welfare until your last post.
You are also aware that there are a lot of very poor people that do not get govt assistance, correct?

And again, I agree that there should be better regulations/consequences of who should recieve welfare (and how they recieve it). But once again, since you say "nonexistant regulations", feel that you are just angry and blowing things way out of proportion.

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

lemme get this straight ...

21.9% of US children live in poverty BECAUSE of welfare!??

Yes...
When you have a system that gives "handouts" with no focus on how to help these people, giving them CASH instead of vouchers and letting them have child after child only to give them more money.
When the children are in 6th grade in my wifes school is where they start the cycle over again by getting pregnant. Thats right 11 year olds getting pregnant. Hell her school has a baby/child day care for the STUDENTS, not the teachers.
20% of people on Welfare are on it for 5 years!

polaris_x

Blockhead wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

lemme get this straight ...

21.9% of US children live in poverty BECAUSE of welfare!??

Yes...
When you have a system that gives "handouts" with no focus on how to help these people, giving them CASH instead of vouchers and letting them have child after child only to give them more money.
When the children are in 6th grade in my wifes school is where they start the cycle over again by getting pregnant. Thats right 11 year olds getting pregnant. Hell her school has a baby/child day care for the STUDENTS, not the teachers.
20% of people on Welfare are on it for 5 years!

soo ... if it wasn't for the socialist principle of welfare - that poverty rate would be smaller?

Blockhead

JonnyPistachio wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

i think the chart said 21.9% of children in the US live in poverty ... second only to Mexico ... hardly the stuff of a Great Country i'd say ...

Brought to you by the great socialism progam - WELFARE.
If you are all so concerned by the ammount of poor children and their lack of opportunities, you would think you would be a little concerned with the nonexistant regulation/consequences of these welfare recipients.
They are the ones to keep this cycle of poverty turning.
You might actually be helping these kids if you teach/educate these parents on responsibilities/consequences for their actions.
But no, Im the bad guy for suggesting that and I am "dehumanizing" them. :roll:
Just keep giving them money and rewarding (with money) for having another child, that seems to be working great!

No need to get in a huff because you learned something today.
By the way, it is once again becoming clearer that you have resentment and hostility toward poor families. You are the first one to bring up welfare here. We were talking about the gap between the rich and poor -- nobody even mentioned welfare until your last post.
You are also aware that there are a lot of very poor people that do not get govt assistance, correct?

And again, I agree that there should be better regulations/consequences of who should recieve welfare (and how they recieve it). But once again, since you say "nonexistant regulations", feel that you are just angry and blowing things way out of proportion.

Your getting confuest. My anger and hostility is towards the actual WELFARE program. Its not doing what its intended to do its supposed to be an Assistance program not an employers. 20% at 5 years is not a program that is helping people.

Blockhead

polaris_x wrote:

Blockhead wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

lemme get this straight ...

21.9% of US children live in poverty BECAUSE of welfare!??

Yes...
When you have a system that gives "handouts" with no focus on how to help these people, giving them CASH instead of vouchers and letting them have child after child only to give them more money.
When the children are in 6th grade in my wifes school is where they start the cycle over again by getting pregnant. Thats right 11 year olds getting pregnant. Hell her school has a baby/child day care for the STUDENTS, not the teachers.
20% of people on Welfare are on it for 5 years!

soo ... if it wasn't for the socialist principle of welfare - that poverty rate would be smaller?

Who knows?

polaris_x

Blockhead wrote:

Who knows?

ok ... so, you don't know if welfare is causing the high incidence of child poverty - you are just against the program in general and felt like linking the two?

ShimmyMommy

polaris_x wrote:

dps79 wrote:

Very true which is why I don't understand how more and more people don't wake up and realize that the way our government has been doing things are wrong and not beneficial to anyone's well being. Why wouldn't more people want to bring a substantial change? Unfortunately our government decides that if anyone else in the world has something they want, they have no problem going in and taking it and trying to instill this bullshit American brand of Democracy

first of all - people have to think there's a problem ... most don't ... as long as they have access to fancy electronics and satellite tv ... all is good ... massive debt; damage to the environment; poverty are not things that consume the general populace ...

[b]and i just want to add that it is the same here in Canada ... not to the extent of the US ... but to a certain degree ...[/b]

Yes, I see the same happening here, in Canada. We have to demand that government represent the people again (or for the first time ever). They are supposed to act on our behalf, not mainly for the rich and powerful. We need to take the control back, vote, protest, and if we have to, run for office ourselves. It's like they are using Ponzi schemes masquerading as democratic governments, hiding the most cunning heist ever executed in history. So much so, those dealings crippled the world economy.

I will not be coming back to argue in this thread. If I am wrong, please correct me. I wish to learn more, maybe we can learn a way to change it all, starting at the bottom.

BTW, check out the documentary INSIDE JOB. :wtf:

brandon10

polaris_x wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

such is the nature of capitalism. you can't have capitalism with a we-first society. in our system people are always looking out for number one, fuck everyone else.

well ... in simplistic terms yes ... but the problems in the US are not caused by capitalism ... they are caused first and foremost by the corporatization of government and the systematic dumbing down of the populace ... in my opinion that is ...

Exactly. It's also a capitalist society in Canada. But with quite a few more social programs and socialized health care.. Americans have been brainwashed into hating anything with socialistic properties. But you can see from the charts posted earlier in this thread, and from the quality of living measures done on countries in Europe and North America, that a healthy balance of capitalism with a heavy dose of social programs, health care, and regulations may be the healthy way to go.

ShimmyMommy

brandon10 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

such is the nature of capitalism. you can't have capitalism with a we-first society. in our system people are always looking out for number one, fuck everyone else.

well ... in simplistic terms yes ... but the problems in the US are not caused by capitalism ... they are caused first and foremost by the corporatization of government and the systematic dumbing down of the populace ... in my opinion that is ...

Exactly. It's also a capitalist society in Canada. But with quite a few more social programs and socialized health care.. Americans have been brainwashed into hating anything with socialistic properties. But you can see from the charts posted earlier in this thread, and from the quality of living measures done on countries in Europe and North America, that a healthy balance of capitalism with a heavy dose of social programs, health care, and regulations may be the healthy way to go.

:thumbup: It can't be all or nothing. There has to be a middle ground for any country to thrive. Ok, I am going now. :wave:

Leash_In_Hiding

brandon10 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

such is the nature of capitalism. you can't have capitalism with a we-first society. in our system people are always looking out for number one, fuck everyone else.

well ... in simplistic terms yes ... but the problems in the US are not caused by capitalism ... they are caused first and foremost by the corporatization of government and the systematic dumbing down of the populace ... in my opinion that is ...

Exactly. It's also a capitalist society in Canada. But with quite a few more social programs and socialized health care.. Americans have been brainwashed into hating anything with socialistic properties. But you can see from the charts posted earlier in this thread, and from the quality of living measures done on countries in Europe and North America, that a healthy balance of capitalism with a heavy dose of social programs, health care, and regulations may be the healthy way to go.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

fife

Blockhead wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

lemme get this straight ...

21.9% of US children live in poverty BECAUSE of welfare!??

Yes...
When you have a system that gives "handouts" with no focus on how to help these people, giving them CASH instead of vouchers and letting them have child after child only to give them more money.
When the children are in 6th grade in my wifes school is where they start the cycle over again by getting pregnant. Thats right 11 year olds getting pregnant. Hell her school has a baby/child day care for the STUDENTS, not the teachers.
20% of people on Welfare are on it for 5 years!

This is the biggest misconception. This belief that people on welfare on getting so much money that they can live off of it. In Ontario Canada where i live a person gets $592 a month to live. with that money they must pay rent, food and anything else they need. most of these people are looking for a job just like the millions of other people in the country. its no so simple to say just get a job. where are these jobs?

secondly, your little story about 11 year old getting pregnant does not represent the trend as a new report that just came out shows i.e. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/h ... 815315.htm.

=so while you say that 11 year old girls are getting pregnant in your wife school (which i highly doubt) that is not the real case. your taking a small part of the world and making it seem like it a world crisis. also, concerning your 20% i would love to see a break down of some of their issues.