First, Classicman, I was focusing on foreign policy with that quote. Foreign policy and internal affairs are not necessarily connected.

But, while I respect many of the opportunities that are available in the United States and that I directly benefit from many of them does not necessarily mean that we are a "good" country from every perspective. When it comes to other FIRST WORLD countries, the United States is behind in many different areas, while ahead in others.

I really don't feel like digging it up now, but I have seen many reports stating how the economic (class) mobility is low in the United States compared to other first-world countries because of how shitty our education is in low income areas. We are not that far ahead in health care, education, and many other aspects compared to other first world countries, but actually behind. If you disagree with any of those, it is only because we have different perspectives on how things should be run, which is subjective, so to say one is better than the other is as pointless as saying red is a better color than blue. Some people would rather have single-payer health care, some others favor privatized health care and then both sides can skew statistics to make their's look more favorable. But I have yet to see any statistic that shows the United States ahead in health care or education at the high school level, which does say something.

Also, you are looking at your view of the United States from a middle class white male's perspective. If you take a look from some American Indians, blacks, poor, and exploited foreigners perspective, you might see something different. All the benefits we receive are off the blood and bones of those four groups whether you will like to admit it or not. We NEEDED to displace, kill, and screw over the American Indians to get their land. We NEED(ED) the blacks for slave labor for the south, a static label to juxtapose whiteness (privileged class) with, and many of them die in our today's wars with very little benefits. We NEED the poor to power our urban areas and economy while they receive the short end of the stick on living conditions and pay. We NEED to exploit foreign countries to get rich (this mainly applies to the upper-class, not us) and our low prices at Walmart.

The United States is an extremely good country from some perspectives and a really bad country from others. We have made many innovations and without a doubt have changed the world since 1776, but we are no means any better than the other first-world countries in all or the majority of areas. We are definitely ahead of the rest of the world in some areas, but we are also behind in many others as well, it just depends on once again, perspective.

Why do you think so many people around the world hate us? It is not some bullshit excuse like you hear Bush and O'Reilly talk about, there are actual reasons.

Though, I would like to say, I do not point these flaws I see for hateful reasons, but because I want to improve our country in the areas that we are lacking in. I want to not only continue many of the great benefits every American citizen receives, but to turn our weaknesses into strengths. If I was just full of hate and looked at the United States in a condescending way, I would just move to Europe. That is the main difference between people like me and ducky.

UG, Japan would not have lasted to the end of the month. They were being attacked from both sides since the USSR declared war on them, had no supply of oil so they would be sitting ducks, and were honestly considering trying to end the war before the bombs dropped, and I have heard of pretty credible sources that said, if I remember correctly, that the Japanese tried to end the war sometime after Okinawa on conditional terms but Truman denied to pursue his goal of "unconditional surrender".

Just think about it. We cut off their oil supplies so they wouldn't have been able to have the same tactics as in the other island attacks, were getting bombed to the fucking ground by US air forces, had another enemy declare war on them who they went to NUMEROUS times to try to end the war with with an economic ideology that they could never accept and were faced a 100% chance of losing the war. To think they would have held out until true unconditional surrender is laughable. They were done before the United States bombed them.

Also, then you have to look at the motives for the United States to drop an atomic bomb on the USSR. Truman did not like Stalin and knew there was going to be an arms race after the war and wanted to have the upper hand. It makes MUCH more sense that the atomic bomb was dropped to intimidate the Soviets while giving Truman the credit of unconditional surrender. Many modern historians acknowledge this so it isn't just some conspiracy theory.

If the war went on, it would just have been become a race to defeat Japan between the US and Soviets. The US was not going to stop and by looking at the Soviet invasion, they were not going to either. On top of that, Japan did not want to become a second Germany with a North and South Japan. They had a monarchy, which would have been the direct opposite of Communism, so they would have tried to stop the Soviets even more than the United States like Germany did. The estimated million death toll its complete bullshit.

Here is a book if you are interested:
http://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-S.../dp/0674016939

If you want more proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrend...s_within_Japan

Yeah, that’s true. :yelsick:

There’d be a WHOLE LOT less political and military turmoil in the world but rather than confuse you with additional facts, I’ll just refer you to piercehawkeye45’s response. :cool:

…… and now a war-time favourite tune “Mi Brue Heben” sung by Jung Yun Leane. A one and a two ..... :drummer:

Actually, I served in the sequel: "The Sun Sets in the East" :f179:

…. and those surgery-tent cut ups Capt. Hawkeye Pierce, Doc Painless, Spearchucker Jones, Major Burns, Hotlips Hoolihan and the rest of those lovable guys and gals at the M*A*S*H unit. :f178: :f207:

These are the most important words spoken on this thread so far. Concise and to the point. :shotgun:

The country is awesome because so many people do not have your view of patriotism that Ibram so accurately defined - A great patriot does not go about waving flags, wearing flags on a lapel, and singing songs of glory. The great patriot innovates. He gets an education. He advances mankind. He sees wrong and tried to right it, sees suffering and tried to heal it, sees war and tried to stop it. There is no glory in patriotism as so often expressed in self-blinding anti-intellectual brainwashing. It is that misguided patriotism that created the American disasters in Vietnam and Iraq. That tried to create nuclear war with the USSR. Fortunately, men are in increasing numbers over the centuries that that boys brainwashed by patriotism are a problem; not a solution.

Yes we need cannon fodder from time to time. So we hype them up with acclaims of patriotism and send them off. But sacrificing one for his country does not make a great man. The greater man comes back alive with the knowledge of how such patriotism can be misguided - or what really makes a great patriot. The great men don’t fight wars. They accomplish greater victory without conflict. That is the real patriot – different from what so many misguided souls believe.

Ibram is right on the money accurate. To become a man, one eventually learns what Ibram has defined.

Are you really gonna bring up this crap? #1 America's poor have it much better than virtually any other country. Yes blacks were used as slave labor - IIRC we abolished that, right? Did we take the land from the indians? Yes and your point is? There will be rich and poor in every society, and our poor have it it infinitely better than most, if not all, other country's poor. ok, fine start naming some other "great countries" which did not exploit some other group to advance their own ideals. I'll wait. I think that America does a hell of a lot for the world as a whole and you are focusing on much of the negativity of the past. Did "America" make mistakes and do bad things, of course, but I think we have gone a long way to learn from and rectify them.

Crap? Is it not true?

First, I'm really tired of the "the poor shouldn't be complaining because they have it better than other countries" reasoning. Its just a cop-out. If we have a problem in our country, no matter how it relates to other countries, we should try to fix it in a reasonable manner.

Second, do you know how the poor compare to other first-world countries?

So you think everything is going to be just fine if when we stopped slavery? Everyone would like that to be the case, but it just isn't true. Blacks still represent the underprivileged class and there are still racial disparities as much as we would like to ignore and blame them on blacks.

Also, you are making it sound like we did blacks a favor by freeing them?

Acknowledge the fact that the only reason you can live your life like it is today is because we took stole from, killed, and deceived the American Indians. You didn't kill anyone, but you are benefiting from your ancestors killing them.

There are no "great countries" that haven't exploited other countries or have benefited of the exploitation of others. America is no different. If I wanted to push the case, I would just talk about the level of exploitation but that would get too messy.

But how do you know we have rectified them?

I'll give you a hypothetical example. Lets say me and you are running a race, 100 meter dash. And because I want the upper hand, I break your leg right before the race. Now, because I did that, I got disqualified and someone else is taking my place and the race is set for the next day. But, because you have a broken leg, the race can never be fair. If we give you a head start, the other guy will complain saying that "he didn't break your leg so he shouldn't be penalized for it" and if you don't get a head start, you will be at a very steep disadvantage.

Now here is the question. By disqualifying me from the race, did we rectify the situation? By giving you a head start, did we rectify the situation? The answer to both the questions are no. The only way the situation will be rectified is when your leg heals, and that comes with time. In the meantime, my replacement will still be benefiting off my misdeeds no matter what his original views are. That is the problem.

That is why there is really no way of rectifying many of the situations that are present today. Yes, we are not doing the misdeeds that we have done in the past, but we are still benefiting from them and there is very little anyone can do about it except trying to speed of the healing process, which ironically usually does the opposite.

But yes, I have been focusing more on the negative parts just as you have been focusing on the positive parts. There is no need from me to mention the positive parts because those are not needed for my argument, but notice how I don't deny them either. If we are arguing over abortion, why would put out an argument for your side? The point of my argument is to say that America has done its fair share of misdeeds and then shouldn't be labeled a "good" country. Everyone knows of America's positive effects, so it is irrelevant using them in my argument. And please don't take me as we are a "bad" country either. We are as I said numerous times, a country that is just protecting our own interests, very little good or evil can come from that statement.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said that at all. I was speaking in terms of relativity. I think we all know there is a problem. To what degree and the decisions on how to address it are not mine to make.

I am not ignoring nor blaming blacks for anything. I did not say, nor imply that at all!

I said no such thing! Not even close. You want us to recognize a problem and correct it, yes? Well all I said is that is what we attempted to do so and still are attempting to address issues regarding racial bias. There is only so much a gov't can do to correct a problem through legislation though. Most of this particular issue may be cultural, not procedural.


Oh please - are you serious? Lets say that one caveman clan killed another clan and took their territory. This particular clan evolved into oh lets just say - Americans - Am I to blame for their actions too? I mean, seriously, how far back do you want to look?

I agree.

Re: the first sentence - To get to the truth instead of winning a pointless argument - Isn't that what we are trying to do here find reasons and answers? Or are we here just to argue. Heck, I don't want to waste my time on that.

America has made mistakes, yes, but overall is America a good or bad country? That is the ultimate question and I say its a good one. But again, that is just my opinion.

Although this discourse is interesting, I will point to the obvious - you will never agree nor see things through the others eyes. But unlike the Kenyans, the two of you aren't going to kill each other, then have your family kill the others family, then ravage the land the others family lived on.
I spent 6 months in Africa. I consider myself a liberal, or maybe a conservative liberal, or maybe a libertarian. Anyway, after 6 months there I have come to the conclusion the west (USA and western Europe) should leave en masse. CENTURIES of aid to them have done nothing. You can say the aid had an agenda behind it, but we (collectively) have built schools only to have them turn into squatting huts. Dug wells only to have one tribe refuse to let another tribe use it, and then when it breaks, the few people we taught how to fix it are either dead and taught no one else, or they've forgotten. We send food, to have one tribe use it as a weapon against another. We (collectively) have not been able to convince them to rise above their tribal roots - something that was accomplished in Europe (to a greater or lesser extent, arguably, depending on location) following the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. I had an Ethiopian Muslim tell me woman are lazy and should have no rights - all while I watched the women carry loads of sticks on their backs to go to the market to sell as firewood so they can feed their children, while the men were busy chewing quat (a drug) and sitting in a drug induced stupor. I went to the dedication of a new school - and watched the mayor of the town ask the aid organization "what are you giving me next?"
After centuries of aid, what the preponderance of the people in Africa know is that wait and the westerners will give you food. Our centuries of aid have created a continent that expects one hand out after another. I can't blame them - its all they know. But it needs to stop. After centuries of trying to bring them from tribal roots and trying to help them become self sustaining, and all of this has failed - maybe we should stop trying and let them solve it on their own. Maybe coming to know that America or England or France isn't going to drop of tons of rice will make them become self sustaining.
BTW, UN forces are not on "stand by" waiting to go to a crisis. There were no large indicators violence was going to happen to this degree. Kenya did not ask for UN help. So, how could the UN have responded? Anyone think of that?
As far as references to Darfur, the AU peacekeepers there are under a limited mandate that limits their involvement, and are ill trainined and equipped to deal with the mess. The main reason the forces are their is because the providing nations receive money for sending troops there. And its not as simple as red vs white. There are over 26 warring factions. An ill-trained and poorly equipped force definitely can't handle that, and quite frankly, neither can the US or any other western nation.

Oh be fair, they could have responded to the crisis by turning all the children into sex slaves.

It's what they do, and when they say they'll stop it, they just continue.

I agree with you, I thought our arguments were to find "the truth"? I am not going to purposely deceive or lie to anyone just to win and you have shown that you aren't going to either.

How was I putting words in your mouth?

The only flaw I see out of my logic is that I said complaining instead of "it isn't such a big deal because...". For that, my fault, but my second sentence still backs up what I should have said in the first place.

I was making a generalization with the "as much as we would like to ignore or blame...". That was more of a rant to make a point than an accusation towards you.

I'm sorry, this is my fault, I changed my post and forgot to edit that.

But, when the topic goes to slavery and someone responds "we freed them didn't we", that almost always is in a context where they are making it seem like did they a favor by freeing them and that rectified the problem. You did say "we did free them right?" in a defensive manner, so I meant to questioned you to see what you meant. I first had it as an accusation, but then reconsidered to make it a question and forgot to take out the 'you'.

For a broad generalization, yes, I want to recognize a problem and correct it but I don't mean that in the typical liberal way, which has made the problem even worse. There are ways the government can correct this problem, but it is in ways that are not being used now, and they are not the typical liberal way of thinking. It would actually seem more like a conservative solution than liberal.

And yes, I agree that most of it has to do with individuals as well.

You can take it as far back as you want and you will find the same thing. Actually, many of the American Indians we stole land from weren't actually the original settlers, which sticks to my point of Americans not being any better or worse than most other nations.

Also, I would like to point out that if any other country would do what we did the the American Indians in present times, we would see human rights violations up the a-hole. So this is a matter of hypocrisy and understanding of what we did to get the land we have now.

In reality, I am not really worked up about this because it has happened so many times before and will happen many times in the future, but the denial that we destroyed a continent of a diverse, advanced (in some parts, hence the diverse), and normal people to get what we have. There is nothing we can do to change the past and I don't even like talking about the morality of actually changing it but it is the denial that gets to me.

I am not accusing you with any of that, just making a point.


Cool. I really don't have much disagreements with a general subjective view on the United States but I attacked what I saw was an objective view that the United States was good, which I disagree with on an objective level.

A genuine patriot, tw, does NOT try what you are on record as trying here: cutting down absolutely every single tactic and strategy likely to result in our winning the war. Tw, you just can't bullshit people with normal minds. Particularly not you. Jeez, buddy, the only reason you try it is to gratify a subconscious masochistic urge: there are people here who think the stupid-Left needs a good hard spanking, one that will go on and on for seven generations.

there are people here who think the stupid-right needs a good hard spanking. One that will go on and on until you use the safety word.

I meant that since our poor are better off than those in other countries are by comparison, we as a country are doing something toward the problem. I certainly did not say nor mean that the poor don’t exist or that we shouldn’t try to help the less fortunate become more independent & productive members of society.

This issue is a matter of perspective. The fact that you/we live in a first world country and yet still have people living in poverty is inexcusable however, the fact remains that economically, it is necessary for there to be a certain proportion of people to live under these conditions in order to provide jobs for all those that get paid to worry about them.

In order to remove this problem, the whole structure of society must be changed, and change doesn't happen very quickly.

Ali, I think it is impossible to remove ALL poverty. Just like utopia or perfection do not exist.

Well if you let yourself start thinking you could change the world, who knows what could happen.

Just cause it can't happen is NO reason not to try.

Or even, just because you think it can't happen is no reason it can't.

ok and I'm the one that gets ridiculed for being optimistic or idealistic - Geez!

The point is, if you're happy to say things like, 'it can never happen' that's as good as saying, 'there's nothing I can do, so why bother trying'. There's nothing wrong with being positive in your outlook on problems which should/could be manageable.

No at all, I never said not to try, in fact, I've clearly stated that we should try to do more. I took offense to your comment
There will never be ZERO - its a fact - Please don't confuse that with working toward reducing the number as much as possible.

Now who would do that...


But getting rid of poverty is quite easy. You see it is a term that doesn't have a set meaning. Which means that if I set the poverty rate down to -$100,000, we have no one in poverty!!! :D


But realistically, getting rid of poverty with this many people on the planet and our level of technology is impossible. If we want to get rid of poverty we would have to either kill off billions of people (hint: this will backfire don't try (see Hitler)) or somehow become so efficient with our technology that we can feed, clothe, and house everyone. The backdrop to the second part is that by the time we do get to that point, the population will rise again and then we will have a new number to catch unless there is some form of birth regulation.

But getting rid of poverty in a first world nation is technically possible but not realistic since there are people who actually prefer to live on the streets, usually mentally ill, and the fact that we live in a heavily stratified society so there will always be the lower class. Also, I am kind of going out on a limb here so correct me if I'm wrong, but in a regulated economy, there will usually always be some unemployment so that will not be something we can get rid of.

Getting to my original point, even though we will not get rid of poverty in the United States, we can make realistic improvements to lower the number that are currently in that state or at least improve the social mobility.

Oh. My God. This guy is really an idiot. Did he not go to school or are the schools so deficiant of any information - other than American propaganda? :smashfrea

But I think what Classicman needs is an explanation that will bring him out of the darkness. He seems to think that the most poverty-stricken American has a better life than those impoverst people in other countries. Classicman has never heard of socialism (it seems) nor would he understand what it means to have free medical care and a sensible un-employment system that doesn't leave any of its' citizens in a state of poverty.

Good luck to you if you take on the assignment. :)

Classicman if I am not mistaken, much of your social security is based on families with children? If you are a young man who can't find work in an area of high unemployment, what help is available to you?

Of the help that's available, how much of it is provided through a voucher system and how much through actual currency?

In the UK, some asylum seekers on, a particular programme, awaiting a decision on their case, are provided with vouchers in order to get what they need. It's never enough, it means they are unable to go to anywhere that isn't within walking distance (often with families having been split up into different areas and twns, but thats a whole other debate:P) and they have the social stigma of buying things in shops with vouchers. Might as well stick a big sign over their head.

If you're unemployed you get a fortnightly payment into your bank, or as a cheque for the post office to cash. It isn't enough, not by a long shot, but with careful money management it is enough to feed and provide basics, alongside a few sparse luxuries like cigarettes and maybe a couple of pints at a weekend. After a certain amount of time (used to be a year, I think its six months now) you start to come under more pressure to take up some kind of work or training. Throughout your claim you report in every fortnight to show what you've been doing to try and find work. Help is available to get into training schemes and 'jobsearch' programmes are mandatory after 6 months. If you don't attend the programmes, you get a penalty, of maybe two or three weeks at half your benefit. (emergency rate).

We have poverty in the UK. Some half a million children live below the official poverty line. I really don't think the poor here, are as badly off as they are in many other places (I suspect including America). On the other hand I know there are countries where the poor are a damn sight better off than here.

Sorry, Classicman. I apologise. I should never have jumped to such a hasty conclusion. :notworthy

Are the poor better off or are the poor hidden?
Even in areas of high unemployment, you can gaurentee McDonald's is highering. Although minimum wage isn't enough to 'make it on your own' (nor is it intended to), there's always a way to make money. My brother supported his family working at Taco Bell taking every single shift offered to him and working his way up to management when he and his wife were first married and they had their 1st son, all on a GED. They lived in a cramped one bedroom apartment on the bad side of town, but guess what, they made it. They didn't starve, they had a roof over their head and clothes on their back. Today they have 2 pre-teens, my brother has a decent paying job in construction, and his wife is able to home school their kids (not because they're right wing, but because the older boy was asked not to return to school... a fight after the teacher called him stupid in front of the class for being a slow reader).
My sister was a single mom and used welfare and student aid so she could get training in radiology. Although not rich today by any means, she has a job that allows her and her daughter to live in a modest 2 bedroom home, and to have some of the 'necessities' for a teenager (x-box, ipod, cell phone).
Seeing the error in the ways of my siblings, I enlisted in the Marine Corps. Not only did the pay allow me to get a BA degree, but I also was able to get a MS. I work in policy today. My point - if you want to support your family in the USA, you'll find a way. The homeless you see on street corners are there by choice. Most can make over $100 a day at a good intersection. And the mentally ill, although sad, cannot be forced into hospitals because then were taking away their freedom.
Poverty will never be eliminated. But the governments in the UK and USA and other western states all TRY. By varying degrees, and differing programs, but the fact is every developed nation has programs to address the poor and homeless. What works in one nation will not always work in another. You cannot compare two nations just because they are both "developed". Japan has a lower homeless rate because it would bring shame on a family for one of their family members to be homeless. They take care of family. The same is true in most developed nations that have a homogeneous population. In a melting pot like the USA, where family ties are much weaker and there is no societal pressure to 'take care' of family, and families are often quite physically distant, you do not have the family support, of lets say, Japan or Norway or Sweden. Its easier for a government to take care of the poor when the families pick up most of the burden.

Care to back this up with a cite? I don't believe most homeless people make that kind of money. That's more than double what a person earning the federal minimum wage ($5.85) would make in an 8 hour day of working.

How many cars go threw a busy intersection in a matter of hours? THOUSANDS. Let's say the light is red every 5 minutes. At each red light he gets $2 from panhandling. That's $24 an hour. Every time I get stuck at a red light with a homeless man panhandling, someone gives a buck or two or ten. I've seen a man get money from 5 cars IN A ROW. Whether it was $1 per car or $10, I don't know. But in less than 5 minutes he had at least 5 dollars. That exponentially increases around the holidays as people feel more inclined to donate.
An article was written in Austin when I was there as a student in the 90s. The University of Texas newspaper (which is quite liberal... UT and Austin are far left) followed a former student who dropped out and made a living off panhandling. By day he was a homeless bum in front of a bookstore. At night he lived in a nice apartment. Since that expose, the number of panhandlers in Austin has skyrocketed.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/..._beggar21.html
From Seattle:
"There's this woman panhandler we've seen who has a nice Suburban with two big kennels in the back," said Dalana Slaughter, safety supervisor to the ambassadors who patrol Seattle for the Give Smart campaign. "To me, that's not homeless."

Slaughter also knows another beggar who fakes injury. "I've seen her sit in the wheelchair, I've seen her get out of the wheelchair," Slaughter said. "Her husband sits down and then he panhandles."

Dreisinger said she knows of a beggar who makes $300 a day. She also heard one panhandler boast that begging got him $26,000 a year -- tax-free."

Out of Memphis
http://www.wmctv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1522655
Panhandlers might have more cash on hand than you do
"A "pied panhandler" of Beale Street is jammin' all the way to the bank. Michael Antonio is a panhandler. "There's men out here right now making hundreds and hundreds." Hundreds of dollars just by asking for it. You see, in downtown Memphis, panhandling is kinda like poker. You can make big money and few people ever call your bluff. We called another panhandler "Little Walter Wannabe's." Turns out he's far from broke.

James Harvey is frustrated with panhandlers. "They down here hustling and begging and while I'm here working 8 hours a day and they make 150 dollars while I make 90 dollars. I should be a bum snatcher." Apparently, he wouldn't even need much of an angle. Franklin Simpson just follows around groups of tourists. Simpson added, "I could average 200 dollars a night if I was just straight out panhandling." And this guy hits up couples using nothing more than a smile."

OK. So at one good intersection you have seen, one homeless dude can do well. How many homeless do you think there are in Austin? How many intersections? Do people pay the homeless at every intersection? Is the traffic at all those intersections constant, or is there a morning rush and an evening rush with little in between?

I don't doubt that a handful of homeless people in one city can do fairly well, but I seriously doubt that "most" homeless people in the US make $100/day.

The true poor are the uneducated single mothers struggling to care and feed their kids. But the government helps them the most. And aid societies help them the most. The ones that suffer are either too scared or too shy or too ashamed to ask for help, or they just don't know who to ask for help from. The help is out there. Children in the US don't starve to death, unless their parent refuses to feed them (and there are sick cases of this). There are countless free food programs. They can eat breakfast and lunch for free in schools. The parents get food stamps (for what... food). Churches and other aid organizations give out boxes and boxes of food.

66% of homeless people suffer from drug addiction, alcohol addiction, or mental illness. And no, folks, the first two aren't necessarily choices.

Those opportunistic sumabitches.

I got distracted as I wrote that post and missed your additional two anecdotal cites.

What I'm saying is that each city will have its handful of hustling homeless dudes who do fairly well, and at the same time, each city will have hundred or thousands of others who sleep in the parks during the day and eat in soup kitchens and spend the night in shelters. They aren't making the $100/day you claim, and they are the overwhelming majority. I walk past scores of them every day.

You have to take the entire text in context.
Does it say all homeless? No, it clearly states the one's we see on street corners.

Yes, alcohol and drug addiction are choices. No one forced a bottle into their hands or a needle into their arms. And guess what? Even if you want to play the "oh pity the addicts" card, you'll be the first one to say we can't take away their rights and force them into treatment or force the mentally ill into hospitals. Double edged sword there... "Its not their fault" and "we have to help" but "we can't force them". Guess what - if we can't force them, the problem will never go away. Never. So which do you choose? I'll keep the problem just not to have them sue over 'taking away rights'. And not to mention it is a slippery slope... if you force the homeless bum into treatment, what about the struggling student, or the high powered exec?

My father had a dehabilitating stroke when I was two. His company took care of my family for 5 years while he recovered. After 5 years, my father was better - but he was never going to be at the same level he was before. The company asked my father to find another job. He bounced from job to job for 2 years, fell into depression (probably had an undiagnosed mental break down), and didn't work for the next 8 years. My mother, with absolutely no education and 8 children to care for, worked 3 jobs to keep a roof over our head and keep us fed. We moved from a nice upper-middle class home to a small 3 bedroom home in the not-so-good part of town. She delivered papers at 4 in the morning. Then she sold bags of nuts/fruits/candy/chocolates door to door for a small local company. After she came home from that, us kids restocked her van for the next day while she went to the local convienence store and worked the evening shift. My sister at 16 waited tables and gave the money she earned to my parents. Our church would occasionally give us boxes of food. They knew we were struggling, but also knew my family was proud and didn't want hand outs. I know what its like to be the poor kid in ragged hand me downs at school that gets teased (I had to wear my brothers coat - that got me laughed at), the kid that turns down birthday party invites because you know you can't afford to bring a present, the kid that doesn't join girl scouts because it takes $5 to join. I know the humiliation of waiting after church for almost everyone to leave to take the box of free food. And from all this I know if someone works hard and asks for help when they absolutely must, they can support themselves. We always had a roof over our head and food on the table. I'll donate food, but I won't donate money.

But you got a great name out of the deal!

lol!
So, how does this go from debating about Kenya to arguing about poverty in America? I tried to get it back on track yesterday but had no luck...

You walk in your shoes Aimee, and you carry with you your life experiences and the things you have witnessed. Others walk in their own shoes, and carry entirely different life experiences, not to mention genetically in-built proclavities, talents and potential areas of weakness. The fact that some people can point to their lives and say I survived, and I did ok, despite these many barriers and anchors, does not necessarily mean that some other person given a very similar set of circumstances will be able to achieve the same outcome.

I do not, for one moment, believe that most poverty is entirely, or even primarily self-inflicted. I do believe there are people who are living in poverty and distressing circumstances, whose life choices and general attitudes have put them where they are. I believe they are a minority. I think the people who manage to break the patterns and chains of poverty are the exceptions who prove the rule. And I very much do not believe we should base our approach to ameliorating poverty on the experience of the exceptions.

You said it way better than I ever could have, DanaC.

And I do not believe that addiction is a choice. You can choose to try to come to terms with it, and do the work to overcome, but you do not choose the predisposition.

In my life are two very important people: one who has been sober 9 years...loves life and family, and is still the funniest guy I know. The other has fled the state because he doesn't want to quit drinking, and is leaving behind beautiful grandchildren and people who love him. Did he choose this? I can't believe that he would choose to give up what was once a very good life, if he wasn't in the arms of something much bigger than he can deal with.

What made the difference in these two people? If we knew that, there would be no addiction. Something, someone, something deep inside him made the former able to find the strength to achieve sobriety. His illness is not the illness of the latter one; each has his own illness that we cannot begin to comprehend because we are not them.

I thank God every day for the one who is doing great. I pray for the one who is not.

But I know they didn't choose the illness.

Dana I wholeheartedly agree that each of us views life from our own experiences. I do not believe that everyone has the strength to overcome adversity on their own. But many organizations exist to help. However, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. Welfare and aid organizations help those that are least able to cope - the familes. As Shawnee points out, 66% of homeless people have alcohol and drug problems and/or are mentally ill. Not to say we should completely abandon them, but they should receive less aid. The addicts blow away money on their addiction. Until they want to change, want to stop the addiction, providing them aid only continues the addiction. An alcoholic (homeless or successful) will deny treatment until he/she has reached the point where they can admit the problem and want to change. The mentally ill that are homeless want their freedom. And unless we take away their freedom, all the assistance we give will only continue their problem. It may seeem merciful to give them aid, but the reality is this only continues the problem. The old addage, "if you give a man a fish he eats for a night, you teach him how to fish you feed him for a lifetime" applies. If you give the addicts and mentally ill aid but don't change their behavior, the problem will not go away.
In an emergency room, triage is used so those with the most life threatening illnesses and injuries are treated first. If you go in with a broken finger, it may take 12 hours before you are seen. Go in with multiple internal injuries from a car accident, you're at the front of the line. The same sort of triage exists in the US for the poor. Collectively it has been decided those at the front of the line are the families. The rest fall by the way side. There are not enough resources to take care of every homeless person unless you cut other programs. And even if you cut other programs, would throwing money at drug addicts and mentally ill change the problem? They have to want to change.
My family did not have money for college. But my family valued education. All but one brother has a college degree of some sort by working their way through college (and depending on aid). I believe education is the key to bringing people out of poverty. And I don't believe money (loans and grants) available is understood by many students. One reason I enlisted was because my mom told me in no way would she co-sign on a student loan, and I had no clue that I could get a loan at 18 without my parents co-signing. I assumed I couldn't go to college. I also enlisted because I though ROTC meant I would be a weekend reservist... lol. But through a lot of hard work and a lot of luck, I got my education. So, to break the cycle of family poverty, the children need to be aware of what their potential is, what programs and resources are out there to help them achieve an education that will bring them out of poverty.

Shawnee - what do you propose the solution is? Do you continue to enable the addict?
I have a brother and sister who have both been through AA. My sister was an alcoholic and druggie in her early 20s (part of the whole 80s craze). One day she woke up and realized she didn't like what had become of her life. She went through AA it must be about 15 years ago. She is one of the women I admire the most. For my brother, it took 3 DUIs to wake him up. But he's been sober about 8 years now. He is completely devoted to his family now.
Addicts unfortunately have to reach that point - and that point varies from person to person - in which they wake up and say "I need to change. And I need to change today." For some people its realizing they don't like who they've become. Others its because its one too many times in jail. And some its only when they have seriously hurt or killed another. So how long to we enable them? Is it more humane to not enable them, and thus bringing them lower, and hopefully closer to their 'point' of asking for help with their addiction sooner?

Where is the enabling you speak of? Do you mean by people giving money to homeless?

That is personal choice, to give, and was something I had not addressed. Rather, I addressed that addiction, like mental illness, cannot be solved by a "wake up and smell the coffee and get better, mister, or else."

We can all point to those who have overcome. All my life I've heard people say "So and so got out of the ghetto (substitute the words poverty, or 'the gutter', or 'out from under the bridge') and made a life, so there is no excuse for the other so and so to not do so."

The first so and so had something, someone, something inside that made the first so and so do something. I cannot judge why the second so and so is unable to do so, and would not disrespect either those who have found the way or those who haven't by pretending I know there's a magic formula and if everyone would just get with the program there would be no problem.

So is this about Kenya in crisis, or Memphis in crisis with the homeless people?

Hell, I don't know. I'm just typin'. ;)

America is a stratified society, no matter how much we try, there will always be people on the bottom.

I don't like generalizing off personal stories because it is such a small sample size that doesn't necessarily represent society as a whole. You probably could find just as many stories that go the other way.

My point in this totally off subject thread was addressing the several people who were faulting the US for having poverty, and several posts in which multiple people stated more or less "if you look at other countries their poor are better off" (in response to a post that our poor have it better off). Too hard to quote everyone verbatum. Bottom line - the US government has programs and has aid organizations. We don't have a homogenous society like Japan where families take care of their own and it would bring shame on a family to have a homeless uncle. Each developed nation government tries to cope with their unique poverty issues. Sweden is different from the UK which is different from the USA. Its inaccurate to say a government better addresses poverty when there is not a common baseline to start from and compare to. An apple tree produces more apples than a pumpkin plant produces pumpkins, but are you going to insult the pumpkin plant and imply the pumpkin plant isn't doing his job?
Personal stories are a sampling of society. Everyone has their own stories. And no ones story is worth more than the next. Something can be garnered from, learned from, everyone's unique story.

Only if the pumpkin plant is a homeless alcoholic. :lol: Just a little levity there.

No, the pumpkin plant isn't a homeless alcoholic. He's working on it, but its too cold for the pumpkins to make the pumpkin alcohol inside their shell. But the apple tree keeps trying to walk to the bus stop to hitch a ride to New York (he heard all about the bright lights in the Big Apple). However, his roots just won't let go! lol
Ok, I'm not the best joke maker ever born...

You did a fine job! It's been great talking to you.

Thanks!
Well, the latest news headline from MSNBC is "Protesters riot after Kenya cabinet announcement"
Looks like the violence will continue there.

Ok, back on topic now everyone...

Fuck Kenya.

Did you think it was going to suddenly stop for some reason?
Please enlighten us.

Yes. To be fair though, I will stick out my neck and say that "the bottom" is found in every country of the world - not only America. But, from your earlier post on the relativity of what constitutes "poverty" (in various societies), I think you will agree with me that the important factor is not so much that there exists a "bottom" but at what standard of living do these "bottom people" find themselves. ie. are they destitute or are they millionaires living in a country of multi-millonaires?

I was just trying to get us back on topic... No, I didn't think it would magically stop.

If I may offer a friendly suggestion: don't worry about trying to keep "on topic". Thread drift is allowed here, and I love it. It throws up some amazing links. There's a thread about avocados in which we ended up discussing drinking bhong water and the nature of Aliantha's arse. :lol:

Yes, there is a "bottom" in every society except for true far left societies, none of which exist today or for the past 300-400 years. But when it comes to it, I would rather have a lower standard of living for the lower class but a greater opportunity for class movement than a higher standard of living with very little opportunity for class movement. The United States does allow for class movement, but it is limited by social factors and education standards. In both poor white and black schools, they expectancy of moving on too college is extremely low, along with very badly funded and run schools, so it is much harder for someone in the lower class to move up than in a place where lower class public education is closer in quality to middle and upper class public education.

But going to the standard of living for the "bottom" in the United States, we do have many people living at third world standards. A lot of the people on American Indian reservations have no running water, no electricity, and live in broken trailers. So even though the majority of the poor are better off than many parts of the world, there are still a few that live in absolutely horrible living conditions. But this is caused by a combination of corruption in both the "white" and Indian power class, neither care about the average person on the reservations.

Hmmmm...thanks for reminding me. :rolleyes: