We're not #1!

[Napoleon Ier]

[
Isolating caucasians our rate would drop, as the racism in our poverty is absurd.

Hm. Yes. Must be it.

[Napoleon Ier]

The median household income doesn't mean shit when the top 5% of wealthy individuals in the United States hold 80% of the wealth in the country. We have the worst poor out of these countries also. If you're poor in this country, you're fucked. Poverty in one of these others nations you may still have a feasible chance at moving up/surviving.

You're confusing what the median is. Taking it in fact all but neutralizes the effect of a top heavy society. What tells you shit is not having an objective yardstick by which to interpret your data. That's not science, it's spin wizardry.

[lgoasklucyl]

The median household income doesn't mean shit when the top 5% of wealthy individuals in the United States hold 80% of the wealth in the country. We have the worst poor out of these countries also. If you're poor in this country, you're fucked. Poverty in one of these others nations you may still have a feasible chance at moving up/surviving.

Everybody is entitled to their opinion.

I just think your opinion is wrong. I think it is the attitude of a defeatist. I think when enough people have that attitude and opinion, you will definitely see it affect the effort people make. In other words, anyone living in the USA in poverty who shares your opinion will not have the desire to change their situation. Because they will think it will not make a difference. It is a self-defeating attitude.

I think there are plenty of opportunities to work in the USA and earn enough money to enjoy a decent standard of living. But the reality is, it takes hard work.

Everybody loves the stats! I'd be very interested to see how many people in poverty have several children. And at a young age (the parents I mean). I know it is a high percentage.

We all know caring for children takes time and money. So when an American, raised in poverty, who is just reaching his/her late teens/early twenties goes out and makes themselves a parent, they are putting a major obstacle in their way. They should be getting a job and working to get themselves in a good financial position and then have a kid or two. But too often they don't do that - they become parents at a very young age. They increase their expenses and decrease their flexibility they would have regarding time and travel (relocation) by having a kid - and often several kids. And because they did that, they are digging a hole that is difficult to climb out of. They often start out as unmotivated and lazy people, and they make their situation worse. So how do you blame that on the government?

Too many people look at the stats and it is like they see an easy way out. "I got no future because I was born poor." Nice, easy, and convenient excuse to be a poor and lazy slob who is another burden on the rest of society. It is bullshit. People need to take some ownership of their situation. I think that is worth repeating. People need to take some ownership of their situation.

I am not saying it isn't generally easier for those born wealthy. It is obviously easier for them in many ways. Are they in a better position to make large amounts of money? Sure. But a motivated, hard-working person born into poverty can prove themselves and earn a decent living. And they can get the next generation of their family on the right track. And in several generations, they could also be part of "the wealthy". But somebody's gotta get off their asses and make the first move. Don't get pregnant. Don't smoke crack. Don't carry a gun. Don't be a lazy asshole.

But that's only my opinion.

See, my opinion is based in the fact that I'm studying in social work and every single day of my life revolves around the statistics related to how every single thing you just said is wrong. Plenty of people take ownership. Over 75% of the poor ARE working people, believe it or not. Something you obviously do not know as you blame it on their 'laziness', a common argument of individuals willing to sit back and accept that it's happening and do nothing about it.

I spend tens of thousands of dollars to sit through lectures and read thousands of pages of subject material on the poor/working poor. Someone entirely uneducated on the subject matter looking from a Fox News perspective that it's entirely 'their' fault is not going to phase me. I'm dedicated my life to helping these people because I KNOW it's not always their fault and I KNOW the systems in place by the government are affected the cycle of poverty they are pushed into. Laziness, pregnancy, and drug addiction may play a role, I'm not saying it doesn't. But there are FAR many overlying problems that greatly exceed the amount caused by sheer laziness.

[Napoleon Ier]

Yet you still don't know what a median is.

[lgoasklucyl]

Relative to the median of your average income. Considering that in the US, it's almost twice what it is in most of those other countries, that isn't bad.

Still, I'd be interested to see what happened when you isolate the statistics to Caucasians.

Thing is- the poverty is determined through a relative method, hence 'relative income poverty'. It's based per the nations income, not a broad statistic.

Isolating caucasians our rate would drop, as the racism in our poverty is absurd.


-Only one area, of course, but I've studied it enough to know it's sadly a pretty broad statistic.


-Relative poverty. Note the formula used

Precisely. So the statistics tell you nothing about the absolute living conditions since they aren't measured against an objective standard.

What the hell are you talking about? Using an objective standards for qualities which vary city to city, never mind across countries, is absolutely absurd, never mind logical. People who think objectively are the reason we have so much goddamn poverty based on freaking laws and guidelines established based on objective standards 20 years ago.

[Snorri1234]

Well, yes. That's exactly what you implied. You say that having unpleasant political movements as your allies in a war against another makes you, and quote, "stupid and fucking retarded".

As opposed to "retarded and fucking stupid"?

Despite your correction, I still said no such thing. I said the iraq-war was stupid, which it is. And I said that it is hypocritical (and fucking retarded) to fund terrorists organisations, no matter how convenient at the time, and then claim you vs terrorism is a fight between Good and Evil with you being the good guys. To act as the moral judge who decides when something is evil and when something is good (and no shades of grey) is silly when you're the head of a country that has never had any trouble with funding evil regimes to accomplish your own goals. And I say funding, because the example of FDR and WWII did not involve any funding. He did not say "okay stalin, dude, sup, here are a few weapons and shit so you can kill them germans." but "okay, I wanna kill those bastards, you wanna kill those bastards, lets avoid eachother and kill them." There is a small difference between a dangerous threat at the time and actively funding the opposition to pose a threat.

Rather than being sat there going "ha...you're monkey...and french" to dodge the fact that that is verbatim what you said, why don't you withdraw gracefully now to avoid further humiliation.

It's a good thing that you're calling me out on flaming/making fun of you.

No one's been arguing about Iraq until you came out the blue and decided that support of Reagan's Afghan policy in the 80s was synonymous with supporting the Bush doctrine in application in Iraq.

Ofcourse, had I said any such thing you would have a point. Since I never did, that just makes you an ass.

Smoke and mirrors snorrarse.

Blatant strawmanning, nappers.

Now answer the damn question: is it wrong to ally with potentially unsavory people in the interest of realpolitik?

No. Is it wrong to act like you never did and then call yourself the Good and them Evil?

[jbrettlip]

10's of thousands a year to read about the poor? Why not GIVE that money to the poor, and read the fairy tales that people are writing in this thread.

[lgoasklucyl]

10's of thousands a year to read about the poor? Why not GIVE that money to the poor, and read the fairy tales that people are writing in this thread.

I don't think that loan companies will hand me the cash to donate. I feel I could better help by paying the money then getting into the occupation to help

The fairy tales in this thread are nice though. They're just like Disney- nice to read but a load of (uninformed) bullshit. Disney's plenty informed- they know what their audience is. These stories are complete fallacy though.

[Napoleon Ier]

Well, yes. That's exactly what you implied. You say that having unpleasant political movements as your allies in a war against another makes you, and quote, "stupid and fucking retarded".

As opposed to "retarded and fucking stupid"?

Despite your correction, I still said no such thing. I said the iraq-war was stupid, which it is. And I said that it is hypocritical (and fucking retarded) to fund terrorists organisations, no matter how convenient at the time, and then claim you vs terrorism is a fight between Good and Evil with you being the good guys. To act as the moral judge who decides when something is evil and when something is good (and no shades of grey) is silly when you're the head of a country that has never had any trouble with funding evil regimes to accomplish your own goals. And I say funding, because the example of FDR and WWII did not involve any funding. He did not say "okay stalin, dude, sup, here are a few weapons and shit so you can kill them germans." but "okay, I wanna kill those bastards, you wanna kill those bastards, lets avoid eachother and kill them." There is a small difference between a dangerous threat at the time and actively funding the opposition to pose a threat.

Er, the US did in fact provided $11 billion worth (pre-inflation) for the Soviet war effort. That isn't the point though. The point is that realpolitik is not immoral, just an unfortunate by-product of a brutal world, and that you can still adopt realpolitik to achieve a broad goal of fighting terror (as Bush today), or oppression of peoples (as Roosevelt in the 40s).

[Napoleon Ier]

No. Is it wrong to ... call yourself the Good and them Evil?

Isn't that precisely the distinction which, with the utmost justification, the West made between itself and the Reich?

[Snorri1234]

Er, the US did in fact provided $11 billion worth (pre-inflation) for the Soviet war effort. That isn't the point though. The point is that realpolitik is not immoral, just an unfortunate by-product of a brutal world, and that you can still adopt realpolitik to achieve a broad goal of fighting terror (as Bush today), or oppression of peoples (as Roosevelt in the 40s).

I think it is immoral, despite being neccesary. If you kill one innocent person to save the lives of thousand other people, it does not make the initial killing moral, it makes it reasonable. It's what makes societies grow, the doing of what is sensible and works instead of doing what is moral.

And still, I would not call what Bush is doing realpolitik. His war is ideological in nature. It is basically the opposite of realpolitik. It is not about costs, it's not about benefits, it's about killing of the "evil" guys without any consideration of what the better policy is. Sure, the ideology and practices behind it might not be very good, but they are there and they are considered first before thinking of what the more reasonable way is. That's why the US is in debt so much, realpolitik wouldn't allow that.

Isn't that precisely the distinction which, with the utmost justification, the West made between itself and the Reich?

Which is why I wouldn't call WWII a prime example of realpolitik. The way the US dealt with the Sovjet, sure. But the overal war wasn't. (Though there is a case to be made for it since the further rise of Hitler would've been very bad for the US in terms of benefit. But that's not really worth considering at this time and also likely wrong.)

[Napoleon Ier]

Er, the US did in fact provided $11 billion worth (pre-inflation) for the Soviet war effort. That isn't the point though. The point is that realpolitik is not immoral, just an unfortunate by-product of a brutal world, and that you can still adopt realpolitik to achieve a broad goal of fighting terror (as Bush today), or oppression of peoples (as Roosevelt in the 40s).

I think it is immoral, despite being neccesary. If you kill one innocent person to save the lives of thousand other people, it does not make the initial killing moral, it makes it reasonable. It's what makes societies grow, the doing of what is sensible and works instead of doing what is moral.

And still, I would not call what Bush is doing realpolitik. His war is ideological in nature. It is basically the opposite of realpolitik. It is not about costs, it's not about benefits, it's about killing of the "evil" guys without any consideration of what the better policy is. Sure, the ideology and practices behind it might not be very good, but they are there and they are considered first before thinking of what the more reasonable way is. That's why the US is in debt so much, realpolitik wouldn't allow that.

Isn't that precisely the distinction which, with the utmost justification, the West made between itself and the Reich?

Which is why I wouldn't call WWII a prime example of realpolitik. The way the US dealt with the Sovjet, sure. But the overal war wasn't. (Though there is a case to be made for it since the further rise of Hitler would've been very bad for the US in terms of benefit. But that's not really worth considering at this time and also likely wrong.)

I'm not discussing the overall war, but rather the way the U.S dealt with the Soviets, and whether said dealings make FDR fucking retarded and stupid and a french boy.

I'm also positing that realpolitik is moral. If you kill one person to save a million, and it's a direct consequence of the killing, then doing nothing equates to killing one million by inaction (which is morally undifferentiable from action). Ergo kill the one to save the million, and you're not being immoral. Double effect. Realpolitik is double effect on a geopolitical stage. It can be realpolitik with an ideological goal: the USA-USSR relationship in the 40s was just this.

[mpjh]

Granted, such studio's do exist. You do know that a studio is one room that has kitchen couch and bed. Works ok for couple or single person, but not viable for two or three kids. Also, in Chicago you need to pass income test for landlord. It is not likely that a landlord will rent to someone with $1000 in discretionary income each month. You also need security, first month and last months rent, so that is over $2,200 up front.

Get the picture?

[Napoleon Ier]

Granted, such studio's do exist. You do know that a studio is one room that has kitchen couch and bed. Works ok for couple or single person, but not viable for two or three kids. Also, in Chicago you need to pass income test for landlord. It is not likely that a landlord will rent to someone with $1000 in discretionary income each month. You also need security, first month and last months rent, so that is over $2,200 up front.

Get the picture?

Yes.

Spoilt, decadent Americans whining like the fat kid at the Cantine that only got 3 Cumberland sausages. What happened to you people?

[mpjh]

Nothing that hasn't happened to people all across the world; rampant, degenerate capitalism.

[Napoleon Ier]

Nothing that hasn't happened to people all across the world; rampant, degenerate capitalism.

Hang on: you're saying you'd have been better off under British mercantilism? You're saying that pre-1776, it was all rosy, because back then, you could find a flat in Chicago for less $700 per month utilities included?

[mpjh]

Never said any such thing.

[Aradhus]

It can be realpolitik with an ideological goal:

Huh? You mean like, stabbing someone to death to show to everybody that murder is wrong..

I don't see how anybody could in their right mind compare what the US govt is doing right now, with WW2. Germany invaded Russia, western Europe, attacked Britain, etc. The US wasn't fighting on Russia's side, protecting their ideals, and way of life, they were just fighting the same enemy.

Iran isn't attacking anybody, same with Iraq. The US just wanted a reason to invade. They fund these terrorist organisations to go in and start shit in Iran, and then they make up bullshit lies about Iran having nuclear weapons, or almost having nuclear weapons.. Trying to demonize Iran, which they've pretty much done, all the while Israel makes practice runs for attacking Iran, and has all their rockets and weapons pointed right up Irans ass.

[Napoleon Ier]

Never said any such thing.

"Rampant, degenerate capitalism" is what caused America to decay into a mess of whiny, demanding and spoilt citizens.

Because rampant, degenerate Socialism worked so much better in the Soviet bloc, didn't it?

[mpjh]

Never said any such thing.

[Napoleon Ier]

It can be realpolitik with an ideological goal:

Huh? You mean like, stabbing someone to death to show to everybody that murder is wrong..

I don't see how anybody could in their right mind compare what the US govt is doing right now, with WW2. Germany invaded Russia, western Europe, attacked Britain, etc. The US wasn't fighting on Russia's side, protecting their ideals, and way of life, they were just fighting the same enemy.

Iran isn't attacking anybody, same with Iraq. The US just wanted a reason to invade. They fund these terrorist organisations to go in and start shit in Iran, and then they make up bullshit lies about Iran having nuclear weapons, or almost having nuclear weapons.. Trying to demonize Iran, which they've pretty much done, all the while Israel makes practice runs for attacking Iran, and has all their rockets and weapons pointed right up Irans ass.

Nor was America trying to directly fight the Taliban, their ideals, their way of life. They just happened to fight the same enemy. Snorri, caught with his trousers down, started making a whole lot of noise about Bush and how I was basically like him only eviler and anyone who agreed with me probably ran their SUV on the blood of little Iraqi children, but that wasn't really the original point of contention.

[mpjh]

You have no point, just the ramblings of a right winger with no particular place to go.

[Napoleon Ier]

Never said any such thing.

So, you don't really know what you're saying, in fact, do you? You don't have a fucking clue. You're just sitting there typing gleefully away with your chubby fingers, nose pressed against the screen, thinking you're some brilliant ironist with savvy political opinions, but you wouldn't really know the difference between Rawlsian justice and Gross Domestic Product, let alone be able to conduct a serious discussion about the respective merits of two competing systems for the distribution of goods and labour in the economy.

[mpjh]

Take you flame to flame wars. Do you have any facts to discuss?

[TheProwler]

Granted, such studio's do exist. You do know that a studio is one room that has kitchen couch and bed. Works ok for couple or single person, but not viable for two or three kids. Also, in Chicago you need to pass income test for landlord. It is not likely that a landlord will rent to someone with $1000 in discretionary income each month. You also need security, first month and last months rent, so that is over $2,200 up front.

Get the picture?

Yes. It's well under $1000/month.

The 1st and last problem is only a "problem" once in your life.

"One room that has kitchen couch and bed" sounds a lot better than "Dirt floor hut with nothing" which is what some people in other countries have...people above the poverty line.