America-2 Dirty Communists-0

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Reagan won it for the rich Americans. The American poor are as destitute as many in the third world.

Stuff and piffle. The number of truly destitute Americans who suffer ANYTHING like the deprivations imposed by poverty on the underclasses in developing nations is so small as to be functionally irrelevant. We have too many in poverty -- at least relative poverty -- but you shouldn't demean the suffering of the truly poor by such a comparison. The poor in the USA are fairly likely to have a TV, electronic games, clean water and food enough (albeit poorer quality) to end up overweight in many cases -- it just doesn't compare.

[jabarto]

Stuff and piffle. The number of truly destitute Americans who suffer ANYTHING like the deprivations imposed by poverty on the underclasses in developing nations is so small as to be functionally irrelevant. We have too many in poverty -- at least relative poverty -- but you shouldn't demean the suffering of the truly poor by such a comparison. The poor in the USA are fairly likely to have a TV, electronic games, clean water and food enough (albeit poorer quality) to end up overweight in many cases -- it just doesn't compare.

Once upon a time there was a small village where everyone was happy all the time. The secret to their happiness? They kept a small child in a closet and beat him daily. Thus, no one was everunhappy becuase no one ever had it worse than that child.

Now do you see why your line of reasoning is flawed?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Once upon a time there was a small village where everyone was happy all the time. The secret to their happiness? They kept a small child in a closet and beat him daily. Thus, no one was everunhappy becuase no one ever had it worse than that child.

Now do you see why your line of reasoning is flawed?

No.

[Beskar]

In short: Subjective versus Objective.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

In short: Subjective versus Objective.

I do recall those terms. Came up in English class a time or two....

[jabarto]

No.

The point is we shouldn't ignore the suffering of millions just because someone somewhere else has it worse.

Oh, and since I forgot to address it in my last post, having a TV or an mp3 player or whatever small consumer good you can come up with doesn't mean you're not poor. I know the poor in America aren't aren't as unfortunate as a Darfur war orphan but just because they can afford to spend a fraction of a percent of their income on luxury goods doesn't mean they're on cloud nine, either.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The point is we shouldn't ignore the suffering of millions just because someone somewhere else has it worse.

Oh, and since I forgot to address it in my last post, having a TV or an mp3 player or whatever small consumer good you can come up with doesn't mean you're not poor. I know the poor in America aren't aren't as unfortunate as a Darfur war orphan but just because they can afford to spend a fraction of a percent of their income on luxury goods doesn't mean they're on cloud nine, either.

Whatever made you think I was advocating ignoring poverty in America? I said that most poor in America have it a lot better than those facing crushing poverty on the fringes of Sao Paolo etc. I may have vastly different ideas about HOW poverty should be reduced, but none would deny that doing so is a worthy goal. Nor do I have a problem with starting in the USA first -- charity begins at home.

[Centurion1]

wow and it was all meant to be a joke.......... im sorry i forgot the title of this thread begs for intelligent discourse

[a completely inoffensive name]

wow and it was all meant to be a joke.......... im sorry i forgot the title of this thread begs for intelligent discourse

Oh, sorry. Didn't realize it was a joke.

[Skullheadhq]

Whatever made you think I was advocating ignoring poverty in America? I said that most poor in America have it a lot better than those facing crushing poverty on the fringes of Sao Paolo etc.

That is not really a justification for a first-world country, now is it?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

That is not really a justification for a first-world country, now is it?

Okay then. Let's be blunt. I don't believe I have to justify a darn thing. We're better off and anyone who thinks we aren't is missing the boat.

I do not believe that equality of outcome is ever possible in a healthy economic system. Nothing works better than the marketplace, but the marketplace reflects the values of those people who comprise it -- and they do not value all contributions equally. There will always be people therefore -- some by happenstance, some by circumstance, and some by their own actions/choices -- who do not receive/benefit as much as others. To benefit the most people to the greatest extent, the goal is and must be to grow the entirety of the economy and enhance wealth. This drags up the lowest in society too. Do they benefit as much as the economic winners? Or course not. But they do benefit.

THAT has been the story of the USA. We work hard, got lucky, and had fewer idiot stumbling blocks put in the way of people's success. So right now, today, you can live a life in the USA as a poor person that is better than the life of a poor person virtually anywhere else. Poverty is NOT relative when you are living it. You either have enough to eat or you don't. You have drinkable water or you don't. You have a roof over your head or you don't. You have affordable entertainment that engages you or you don't. You have access to learning or you don't. By all of these standards, the poor in the USA are better off.

Doesn't mean I don't want to see things get even better. Doesn't mean I don't do charity effort to help out. But "poverty" in in the USA is $5500 per person per year with no taxes and a bunch of publicly funded services. It just isn't the same thing.