Poverty and accountability

[FMBI]

He also ignored relative poverty, gun types, and the influence of religion. I'd hate to be the first one to point out that secularism carries some hefty benefits as far as law and order go. Race is one factor, but racial relations are a much bigger factor than race itself. Blacks have been locked into a long-term cycle of poverty, and they're still having a hard time getting out of it. When someone's lying on the ground, trying to get up, do you kick them and say that it's their own fault, or do you try to help them get up?

 

And also, dark, if there's one thing I can say - Stop reading Pat Buchanan. This is the man who blames the loss of Europe's "greatness" (greatness - when you slaughter millions in the Congo and Sudan) and Britain's empire on "British warmongers who caused WW2" - this is the man who says Hitler "didn't want war" - this is the man who blames abolitionists for the apparently unnecessary civil war - this is the man who supports Nazis who fled with millions of dollars of stolen treasure, instead of the ones who gave themselves up/lived as anonymous citizens.

 

From what you've said in the past, he seems to be one of your greatest inspirations - which is sort of depressing, considering that he ignores historical fact, or mangles it, while keeping just enough of the popularly-agreed history intact to make it believable.

[NBVegita]

[irony]

As for black americans being the poorest, ironically they are poorer than latinos, when latinos have a higher high school drop out rate, much lower college graduation rate, the same yearly household income average, of course have a much lower hs graduation rate, and still manage to have a lower unemployment rate. Ironically Asian americans have the highest average household income. If the Latino and Asian americans can do it, sorry if I don't feel bad for the poor black americans. And to couple this guess which race is the race that recieves the most welfare? I'll give you 3 guesses and the first 2 don't count.

[/irony]

[AstroProdigy]

It's called an immigrant mentality. It involves the feeling that you have to succeed because you aren't in your own country and are being given an opportunity by being in this country. African Americans were brought in chains as slaves and were even willing to play the game after the Civil War, but it was followed by a hundred years of Jim Crow and lingering racism going on further after that. There's a reason Native Americans have high alcohol addiction rates and it's not because they're inferior. It's all related to the cir!@#$%^&*stances of their situation. No matter what they do the invaders who massacred them will have their land.

 

It's the reason why Europe's Arab immigrants have so much trouble in Europe while American Arab immigrants don't. They don't feel like they can be accepted into the cultures because those cultures use multiculturalism as a veil for not wanting to accept Arabs as part of those nations ethnic group. France had those riots because Arabs feel economically discriminated, but at least France tries to !@#$%^&*imilate them unlike in the UK which has terrorist attacks because it purposefully avoids !@#$%^&*imilating the South Asian Muslim immigrants it has.

 

This is why Mexican Americans are an upwardly mobile group. Despite all the redneck racists they're still a group that is capable of !@#$%^&*imilating even in huge numbers. Caribbean Americans and African immigrants have much better economic prospects because of their immigrant mentality. This has absolutely nothing to do with racial inferiorities. I don't want to sound like this is the reason to vote for Obama, but African Americans will have trouble blaming the man for their hardships if the man is black. It won't solve things, but its a start. Other things required would be fixing the inner city schools, providing more after school programs for African Americans youth so they have something productive to do, and helping all those single mothers who are especially prevalent and struggling in the African American community.

[Bak]

baby licenses needed

[NBVegita]

I do agree with the shot in the back part, but they were on his property, 15 feet away from him, armed with crowbars.

 

And Astro, do you realize that you simply keep making excuses for these people?

 

Not in one post have you ever held them accountable for their actions.

 

You represent the epitomy of what this country has become, as who needs accountability when you can simply blame X?

[FMBI]

If I may derail this topic for a moment, the reason nobody feels "accountable" anymore is because conservatives have been telling people "You need to be responsible for yourself, your neighbor needs to be responsible for himself, don't interfere, don't distract, don't help, don't assist" - odd how you can pin the blame for non-accountability on American liberals who (in every book, on every blog, and in every TV appearance) insist that we bring accountability back to America.

 

Who's more believable on "accountability" - someone that asks you to cooperate and allow designated agencies to do their job (especially when, as in this case, the criminal is not a threat), or someone who says that you have the right to kill a law-breaker, to ensure "justice"?

 

Criminals should be held accountable, but you can't simply label someone a criminal and then "take unilateral action" in punishing them - need I quote Gandhi? The justice system certainly has its flaws (many of which, incidentally, have been promoted by conservatives who believed in "eye-for-an-eye" retribution), but I'd rather see everyone get a legitimate trial than see a reversion to medieval justice. Simply committing a crime does not strip people of basic human rights.

 

And, by the way, nice job on, once again, evading the "in the back" part. Crude hand-to-hand weapons, 15 feet away, with their backs to him.. and he felt threatened by them. The only possible conclusion from your arguments is that you value the integrity of his private property ("No Tresp!@#$%^&*ing") more than you value the lives of two men. And (to take a cheap shot) you say fascism is dead?

[NBVegita]

I would personally like to know the evidence behind him getting away with shooting them in the back, because even in NY, you can shoot someone in self defense, but it's a !@#$%^&* hard case to prove that shooting them in the back is self defense.

 

I do agree with the shot in the back part

 

Yes I am quite evading that aren't I?

 

Disregarding you trying to bring "party ideals" into the picture, how does what Astro has been preaching do anything but take away the accountability from the poor?

 

but you can't simply label someone a criminal and then "take unilateral action" in punishing them

 

First off he KNEW they were already criminals. If two men came onto my property with crowbars and ended up 15 feet from me, I'd sure as !@#$%^&* shoot.

 

None of us were there (as I've stated many times) but these two criminals made their way from his neighbors property onto his property and 15 feet from him. Could he have propagated it by leaving his house? Sure, but since when is leaving your house against the law? Who is to say these men did not see the gun (maybe he was intentionally hiding it) until he shot at them? As stated I would love to know the evidence involved in that.

 

many of which, incidentally, have been promoted by conservatives who believed in "eye-for-an-eye" retribution

 

Elaborate.

 

odd how you can pin the blame for non-accountability on American liberals who (in every book, on every blog, and in every TV appearance) insist that we bring accountability back to America.

 

That is only true through traditional liberals, neo-liberals which most of american liberals tend to lean towards have the opposite effect. But lets save that argument for another time.

[AstroProdigy]

There's a reason people are poor and then their kids are much more likely to be poor. Is it the kids fault they have much higher failure rates than rich kids? You can't just blame an entire subset of society as natural failures and never bother to recognize nor bother to look into the reasons it happens that way. No laziness among one group over another is not an explanation.

[NBVegita]

So these kids aren't accountable for anything simply because they're poor?

 

They don't do well in school, oh its ok, they're poor.

 

They don't do their homework, its ok, they're poor.

 

They dropped out of school, its ok, they're poor.

 

They can't hold a job, it's ok, they're poor.

 

They can't manage the little money they have, its ok, they're poor.

 

They resort to crime, it's ok, they're poor.

 

Give me a break.

 

Is it easier to have all the money in the world? Sure. Is not being rich an excuse to not succeed? No. The fact is all men are not created equal. Some men are born with a golden s!@#$%^&*, others must struggle simply to attain a pewter one.

 

You will never ever be able to convince me that being poor is an excuse to have less accountability. Nor does what ethnicity you come from.

[SeVeR]

Poor kids come from poor areas with poor schools with poor teachers, with crime happening everywhere around them, and a lack of investment, leading to poor levels of employment where people are getting laid off all the time.

 

I'm not blaming society, i'm just saying the deck isn't even close to being stacked in their favour.

 

You make it seem like poor kids are given every opportunity to dig their way out.

[NBVegita]

The fact is all men are not created equal. Some men are born with a golden s!@#$%^&*, others must struggle simply to attain a pewter one.

 

Yes that really does imply that I think the deck is stacked in their favour. How foolish of me.

 

Poor kids *ARE given every opportunity to dig their way out. Money can't buy passion, motivation, discipline, love, compassion, or any other mul!@#$%^&*ude of reasons why people, not just kids, succeeed.

 

*There are select few, and very select few cases where this is not so.

[AstroProdigy]

When an individual fails you can blame it on the individual. When a whole society of individuals fail you can't just blame it on all of them and go on your merry way not caring. Clearly you yourself developed an antipathy towards poor people as you've described your own personal experience with them "gaming the system". Therefore whenever there's a problem in poor communities you blame it on them and throw all sociological reasoning out the window. It's pretty predictable actually.

[Bak]

if any one of us suddenly became poor and lost everything we had, we'd most likely do fine getting our way out. however, lots of poor people don't have the education (knowledge, not just diplomas), motivation or upbringing to get them out. We can't give poor people a middle-class childhood.

[SeVeR]

Clearly you yourself developed an antipathy towards poor people as you've described your own personal experience with them "gaming the system". Therefore whenever there's a problem in poor communities you blame it on them and throw all sociological reasoning out the window. It's pretty predictable actually.

I wasn't going to say anything but since Astro just did... it is predictable. Not only for what you've seen of others, but because of what you've achieved yourself NBV. You seem to have the idea that "if i can do it, then anyone else can do it". You seem to think that all poor kids have exactly the same sets of cir!@#$%^&*stances as yourself, and that they'll get exactly the same opportunities to dig themselves out. How much of what you did was down to luck? How many kids are worse off than you were? Its a crap shute with many different flavours of crap. Some may even have more desire and ambition than you had and will still fail.

 

Good parents are the most important thing. Poor parents are either not there because they're working all the time, are so demoralised at not being able to find a job for various reasons, are drug-users or criminals, or are just failures at life for any of the wasteful no-effort reasons you described NBV. Now what do their kids do? What can they do with a parent like that? They're not gonna make the educated, sensible decision because they don't even know what that is, they have crap parents remember?

[PaRa$iTe]

They don't do well in school, oh its ok, they're poor.

Because, most likely, they will have to prioritize survival over homework - after they get home from school, they spend the next

ten hours collecting scrap metal for money.

They don't do their homework, its ok, they're poor.

Read above.

They dropped out of school, its ok, they're poor.

Because they need those extra hours in order to get food more often than twice a week.

They can't hold a job, it's ok, they're poor.

Because they aren't educated, and there are LOTS of people like that, employers aren't likely to care much. If they need some extra money for the month,

why not fire a poor guy - there are a dozen more out there willing to work for half the salary.

They can't manage the little money they have, its ok, they're poor.

I assume you mean addicts here. There are lots of rich people with bad habits, too - the difference is they can afford it, just because their great-grandfather

was smart. Still, they're not to blame; it's ok, they're rich.

They resort to crime, it's ok, they're poor.

Because the one dollar a day they earn isn't enough for proper food.

The fact is all men are not created equal. Some men are born with a golden s!@#$%^&*, others must struggle simply to attain a pewter one.

I have yet to see why this state of affairs would be desirable. You tend to state this as a fact - "This is what the world is like, live with it.".While I can't complain about my own situation - for example, I do well in school, I don't have problems with jobs, and I manage my money well - I disagree with your implied at!@#$%^&*ude that inequality should be status quo in a thriving democracy. Call me an idealist if you will - I'd rather see it that EVERYONE was born with at least a pewter s!@#$%^&*. You know as well as I do that if those of us who have had a bit of luck in the great game of life just made an effort, we COULD make this happen; unlike me, however, you seem to enjoy your elevated position. I don't need poor people as targets for my contempt. Why should I? The rich ones suffice.

 

On a sidenote: No, I don't approve of poor people dropping out of school, or stealing, or suchlike - far from it. I would personally never do any of those things if I had any other option. But I understand the fact that people do those things, just as I understand the successful people who treasure what they've earned. Being ethical is a luxury you have when you get a chance to consider the needs of someone else.

Edited July 26, 2008 by PaRa$iTe

[»Ducky]

Sever nailed my family growing up. Typical father bail out and while my mother was great, working 2 jobs to support my younger brother and I, she wasn't nearly home as much as we could have needed her. I'd see her maybe 10 hours a week.

 

If it weren't for the fact we were born in a relatively middle class/lower class divide (instead of a hardcore ghetto), I don't think I would have made it. My brother would have because he's morally strong, but I'd have failed (and probably truly am failing right this moment).

 

Kinda weird this topic is still going strong, I'd have thought most of us would have written off Vegita as a clear whackjob by now.

 

Texas has been on my "please annex now" list for years already.

[Bak]

Texas has been on my "please annex now" list for years already.

um... I think it's already a state

[NBVegita]

Astro what is a society made of? Oh wait individuals.

 

As for the rich, they have problems stemming from too much money. Where the poor commit crime out of laziness/necessity, the rich do it out of boredom and advancement (monetarily). I've never once stated that the rich don't commit crimes. Does that mean take the money from them? No. So if the poor are committing crime from lack of money, do we give them money? No. Money isn't the problem. (Unless you're absolutely stealing to have a basic survival)

 

My problems are such:

 

If someone is poor, that seems to be an excuse to do whatever they need, including breaking the law to survive.

 

Our current welfare system obviously is not working so I'm greatly opposed to someone forcibly taking my money to put into a system that is not working.

 

If you want to help the welfare system, you fix the broken system in place, you don't expand an already broken system.

 

As I've stated more times than I care to count, I'm not against welfare, I'm all for strongly regulated welfare.

 

Oh and para, of course you can find extreme cir!@#$%^&*stances as to where the poor kids have a ridiculously hard time, which is why I made my disclaimer. But if all of those poor kids were working so hard, they would be able to hold a job. As with Astro's father, whom I believe he said was an uneducated immigrant, who has been in the same job for 30+ years? As I've outlined before if you simply stay with your job, you can make it into the "middle class" America, even if on the low end. Which then, according to you guys, would give your kids the opportunity to become middle class and so on and so forth.

 

There are tons of jobs requiring little to no education that if you do your job and show up to work on time (excluding layoffs) you will be fine.

 

Why don't we start programs where instead of giving them free money, we create jobs specifically aimed for the under educated poor? That would not only help the poor, but our economy as well. Oh that's right, then they'd actually have to work for their money.

 

Also I believe 3 prior times I have admitted I am harder on poor people, coming from a very poor area and a very poor family. I'm arguing from what I've seen and been through as a poor child, you are arguing theories coming from middle class families (Not all of you so don't crucify me, but the fact that you even have computers and internet is a step way above me, I didn't have a tv in the house until I was 14.) If you could show me statistics showing that if you give the poor money they will have a good work ethic and motivation and will complete school, commit less crime (including drugs), manage their money better and overall become better people, then I will switch sides on the argument. But from life experiences I've had I have to disagree, money doesn't change who you are. If you give a lazy man $10,000 he is still a lazy man.

 

“Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime”

[PaRa$iTe]

Nice post, NBV

If someone is poor, that seems to be an excuse to do whatever they need, including breaking the law to survive.

Yeah, some people do take it way too far. Breaking the law to survive, however.. it seems fairly obvious to me that mostly anyone would do that, within certain limits. Would you not tresp!@#$%^&* on private property when runing away from a gang of knife-armed thugs, even if it's technically illegal? (Yeah, I know it isn't the same thing; but then again, in a way, it is.)

Our current welfare system obviously is not working so I'm greatly opposed to someone forcibly taking my money to put into a system that is not working.

If you want to help the welfare system, you fix the broken system in place, you don't expand an already broken system.

Good point, and I agree. You need to consider what the problem is though; for example, it could be that the system would just need more money to work (I strongly doubt it, but it could be at least partially true). The one we have in Finland doesn't work perfectly, either, but the gap between the haves and the have-nots is way smaller here, yet we remain a semi-succesful country, so I assume it's worth something.

As I've outlined before if you simply stay with your job, you can make it into the "middle class" America, even if on the low end. Which then, according to you guys, would give your kids the opportunity to become middle class and so on and so forth.

And one of my points, in the previous posts, was that I'm strongly opposed to a system where you need to work for 30 years in a !@#$%^&*ty job to make it into the lower middle class.

Why don't we start programs where instead of giving them free money, we create jobs specifically aimed for the under educated poor? That would not only help the poor, but our economy as well. Oh that's right, then they'd actually have to work for their money.

The problem here is that nobody is prepared to create those jobs. The private market won't, because abusing the poor in developing countries is so much cheaper, plus it's legal. The government won't, because showing left-wing tendencies equals political suicide.

Also I believe 3 prior times I have admitted I am harder on poor people, coming from a very poor area and a very poor family. I'm arguing from what I've seen and been through as a poor child, you are arguing theories coming from middle class families (Not all of you so don't crucify me, but the fact that you even have computers and internet is a step way above me, I didn't have a tv in the house until I was 14.)

You're probably more accustomed to the life of the poor than I am, true, since I'm lower middle-class or so (we always had a small black-and-white TV, and I've been using discarded computers from my dad's work place since I was 13; however, we live 3 ppl in a 2-bedroom apartment and we can't really afford a car). This can be an advantage for you in some situations; however, as you said yourself, it can also make you harder for poor people; since you managed to leave the Pit of Poverty you seem to expect everyone is.

If you could show me statistics showing that if you give the poor money they will have a good work ethic and motivation and will complete school, commit less crime (including drugs), manage their money better and overall become better people, then I will switch sides on the argument.

But from life experiences I've had I have to disagree, money doesn't change who you are. If you give a lazy man $10,000 he is still a lazy man.

That's true, in a way. I really doubt free money would help everyone; most probably, the more available, the more leeches there would be. Unlike you, I believe that money does change people, just not for the better. However, middle-class people tend to commit less crimes, in general, than poor people do (then again, rich people seem to do drugs as if there's no tomorrow *cough* celebrities *cough*). Is this because some people are born criminals and therefore God makes them poor? I doubt it. Money doesn't make people better, but it gives them a chance to make themselves better; the poor don't always have this chance. It's futile to expect a short-term solution, but after a while (a generation or so) the previously poor families should be !@#$%^&*imilated by the middle class. I highly doubt they would form secretive ex-poor brotherhoods, the rituals of which would include burning government money and making blood vows to teach their children how to abuse society.

 

 

I suppose it's about priorities. I just don't think you should have to work your !@#$%^&* off to get in a situation where you can actually live, not just survive. To me, the ideal situation would be one where everyone, not just the lucky half of the population, would have something, not just struggle so they could stay at zero. My family hasn't ever lived off welfare, but that's because, well, my parents' families didn't live off welfare either. I got something of a boost - being born into a family which could survive, I got a chance to live up to my potential, such at it was - I'm not a perfect person, but I believe I'm highly ethical, and I'm and A+ student. I don't believe I could've done that if I'd had to work days and nights through elementary, being told by my parents to pick-pocket tourists so that they could afford to buy vodka. I'm aware of the luck I've had. This is why I want others to get the same kind of "boost" (yeah, talking in video game terms might be lame, but I believe you understand my point). You, on the other hand, were born into a poor family - you didn't get the "boost" (or w/e. I'm starting to hate the word) yet you managed; because of that, you seem to think that anyone who doesn't is incompetent. Let me just ask you one thing - don't you believe that with a better start in life, you might've been even better off?

[NBVegita]

"don't you believe that with a better start in life, you might've been even better off?"

 

Monetarily or as a person?

 

On both accounts I'd say it's hard to say. But I will say this, I do believe that part of why I'm so conscious of how I spend my money and savings and investing is the fact that I know how hard it can be to save. Money was never easy to come by so I used to save every cent I had, usually which I'd use to help my parents pay for things. But I think that it taught me a lesson about money and life that I never would have learned otherwise. Coming from an area where I had to work my !@#$%^&* of to get by gave me an unparalleled work ethic, which as allowed me to strive in the workforce. My fiance on the other hand came from a solid middle class family living in the suburbs, had a car as soon as she turned 16 ect. and she couldn't manage money to save her life. Not only that but with all those advantages she went to local state college and I went to a very good private university. Luckily I manage our finances lol

 

Who's to say if I'd be as conscious with my money and have the same ethic if I had been born with more money? In fact I would accredit coming from a poor family as to why I'm such a strong, well adjusted person today. In my opinion nothing worth having in life comes easy.

 

The only thing I have to say to your above post, as you presented your ideas well, is that we will always have our rough "class system" because someone's got to do the small jobs. The problem in America is that you have thousands of unemployed people who refuse to take jobs where they feel "under employed". A buddy of mine's father got into a cake job making 60k a year and got laid off after 6 months. Now he refuses to take a job making under 50k. Before that job he was making 35k.

 

As with anything, you need someone flipping burgers for you, you need someone running the stores, the gas stations ect, and with that someone pressing burgers at McDonalds shouldn't make nearly the same as an accountant. Which also means that if you're content being a burger flipper, you won't be able to make it into the middle class. If you're not content and you really want to better yourself, you've already gotten the biggest obstacle out of the way.

[PaRa$iTe]

Unfortunately, yes, the age structure in industrialized countries create a situation where you can never completely eliminate the "class system" (else, most of those positions could most likely be filled with students looking for some extra cash or independence). However, that does not mean that the life of the "lower classes" cannot be improved. Of course, not everyone can have the same base salary - that would be way too unfair. But I fail to see how the work of a random VP somewhere would equal that of a hundred normal employees. Working harder-than-average should be a way to earn some extra cash, not a survival necessity.

 

As for me, I don't really care much about money. I just need enough to afford my limited social life ;P. Nevertheless, I don't think being a burger flipper would earn me enough money for that, unless I worked double shifts. And in that case, I wouldn't have the time. Fortunately, I won't have to (I hope). But there are people who're born into a situation where they WILL have to, regardless of their work ethic and motivation. Now, they might work hard enough and get better jobs in a few years - but they've wasted a few years of their life doing absolutely nothing except for flipping other people's burgers, not of their own choice, but because they had to. That's their youth we're talking about, and no matter how succesful they are, they'll NEVER get it back. I'd rather stay in my current position for the rest of my life than work my !@#$%^&* off till I'm 30 and reach millionaire status at 60 years of age. Honestly.

 

Monetarily, you'll probably be better of than I. But that's simply because I don't give a !@#$%^&* - if I have to choose between the job I like, and the job that gives me three times the salary, I'll pick the first option anytime if it's at all a plausible option. As a person.. well, rating personalities is a total waste of time. But I honestly think I'd be worse off as a person had I been born into another kind of family. Then again, you being different, you might think my lack of concern for money is a major personality flaw. Who knows.

 

On a sidenote, we're going way off topic here

[AstroProdigy]

Astro what is a society made of? Oh wait individuals.

Yup you're absolutely right. Let me go tell the sociology department in my school that they should shut down because they've been wasting their time. A society is just the individuals in it and nothing else.

Edited July 28, 2008 by AstroProdigy

[SeVeR]

Lol conservatives make me laugh. I think the first time they build something by themselves, or make their first $1000 dollars, they take it upon themselves to turn that good feeling into a demand that everyone should be utterly self-sufficient. In a way they're more of a socialist than i'll ever be, because they would rather force us all to not have a society. In a conservative world we'd all have our little plot of land, fenced off from the next plot, sitting on our porch with a gun, with 15 bolts on the door, a guard dog, and an American flag waving from the rooftop...

 

Some people don't realise that civilisation is the reason we have guns and houses and supermarkets.... and flag manufacturers....

[NBVegita]

[»Ducky]

um... I think it's already a state happy.png

Mis-defined word, my mistake.