Is the economic disparity in the US that great?

[GePap]

Are people in the US really that dumber than others elsewhere, who, when given the chance, go for food?

Besides, if you friend is eating (like a college student), he does not fit the definition of going hungry.

I just don't think you can balme starvation on poverty, when the standard of living of even the lowliest of income earners is relativly high compared to the rest of the world.

Standards of living are relative. While nobody in the US has the same conditions as people starving in east Africa, it does not mean that the poor people in the US live like kings of some sort, specially when compared to the hundreads of millions of other people living in rich countries that are not the US, like Europe or Japan.

[Japher]

you shouldn't try to generalize the problems of poverty

You talkin' to me? I was just trying to point out that you can't corrolate hunger to poverty, as GePap has done.

I agree that the solution is a lot more complicated than just giving out more.

[Japher]

GePap: All I am saying is the poor does not equal hungry.

[Sava]

You talkin' to me?

yeah I'm talking to you! I don't see anyone else, so I must be talking to you

ahhh, I think I read a little too much into your post... nevermind

There is an inaccurate stereotype of poverty in America. I'm not saying you suffer from it, so please don't take it that way. IIRC, only about 10% of welfare recipients are chronically poor.

[David Floyd]

*bump for monkspider*

[Shi Huangdi]

Originally posted by Sava
tuning in to imaginary 'Poly again? Why don't you ask Che if Socialism involves forcing people to part with their possessions.

Fabrications won't fool anyone.

Not imaginary at all. We were debating, (well I was debating, you were BAMing) on wheteher on the Eastern European countries were socialist. I presented an argument why they where, you BAMed that they were not. Che came in and said that they were indeed socialist.

Anyway, socialism does indeed have as a goal the forcible removal of private possesions, since it is a transitory state towards communism which is against private property altogether. Of course, even while in the transitory phase there is usually forcible removal of possesions, as after the revolution comes the owners would be stripped of the factories and the like, and in practice as we saw in socialist countries the rich could end up losing everything.

In fact, any system other then Libertarian anarchy forces you to part with your possesions to some degree. When you are taxed, some of your possesions in capital form are being taken away. Not that that isn't inevitable, but I don't believe forcible removal of possesions was what Jesus was going for.

[David Floyd]

In fact, any system other then Libertarian anarchy

Libertarianism is not anarchy. You might say it's a minarchist system, and that's probably true - but it is in no way accurate that Libertarians want NO government and NO laws. We believe that government exists to protect freedom and punish coercion, and not a lot else, but the key point is, we believe that government should exist.

[Shi Huangdi]

Well there are Libertarians who call themselves Anarcho-Capitalists, but ya what I said would also apply to a minarchist government.

[David Floyd]

OK. I just feel that representing Libertarianism as anarchism, is, by and large, an inaccurate representation. Sorry to nitpick

[Shi Huangdi]

Depends on who you ask there. According an anarco-capitalist they are the one true form of real libertarianism.

[cinch]

Shi:

How so? Where did Jesus demand political reform? If Jesus was interested in changing politics, why didn't he make appeals to the leaders? He didn't talk to politica leaders, he talked to peasants who were of no special importance to their society?

The Bolsheviks didn't spread their agenda by talking to the Tsar, either. They talked to the workers. Jesus talked to the peasants, the laymen, anyone who would listen, really. What better way to subvert a government then to turn the population against it?

Jesus said that man with two coats should give one to a person with none. He did not say the government should force the man with two coats to have his coat redistrubted.

Well, no, of course, he wouldn't say that, because he would want to believe that The Man With Two Coats would come to realise that it is only right to give one coat away. But his message was also an anti-materialistic one, and that seems much more compatible with socialism than capitalism. He wouldn't be a hardline commie, but I think he'd probably be in favour of a little redistribution.

Now, you probably have a point when it comes to saying that he wouldn't outright FORCE redistribution on anyone, but I just think his teachings lead more towards collectivism than anything else.

[orange]

This could be due to addictions, education (or lack there of), self image issues, and/or weakness to mass media...

Then why not fund rehabilitation centres, education (especially Urban) and Healthcare (again, especially Urban) if these are the causes of poverty. You don't even need a big tax hike...just reallocate money from Defense spending and viola!

[Kidlicious]

income inequality

The reason for the increased inequality in income disparity can't be found in liberal or conservative dogma. It's our economy. Before 1979 compensation was more based on work. After 1979 compensation became more based on other things (maybe wealth or luck). When compensation is based on work the income inequality will not be high, but when it's based on other things it will be great. So it really has nothing to do with liberal or conservative policies.

[Al B. Sure!]

Orange:

I think rehabilitation and job training should become primary gov't expenses... just take away some money from the prison system and welfare respectively...

as for education... i think that funding is not the main problem with the education system. The Philly public school district was horribly bankrupt but they were also 'losing' several million dollars so corruption was the main problem. I'm cautious about the idea of just throwing in more money and things will improve. I do think that there should be some more equity in school funding between philly and the surrounding suburbs though but I think state taxes should be used for that (divided a bit more equally) matter not necessarily federal money.


thanks

[Japher]

Good post Speer

Education is a sticky subject, and I remember you bringing it up some time ago.