Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

So you are saying that if more Americans had less money, they would be happier?
This has to be one of the worst excuses for unchecked capitalism I have ever heard.

I am saying the difference in the attitude between the poor here and the poor there was amazing. I attribute it mostly to the extreme sense of family there. It is an observation more than anything else.

Yes, let’s please try and make the U.S. health care, education and economic systems more like Mexico’s! What a grand idea. Exactly how quickly would you like to eliminate the middle class?

Did you expect your guide who makes his living off of tourism to tell you that those people were miserable?

I defy you to show me one urban center in the world where the poor can be classified as “happy”.

So what you are saying is that you took a rich family’s vacation, made a token layover to watch the po’ folk, and based an entire stance on an offhand remark by a single tour guide (who incidently is paid to cater to rich tourists)? Is your point that the US should be more like Mexico or that the poor should learn to deal and shut up and we’d all be better off? I’m lost on that…

You can’t sum up an entire people and their lifestyle/views/work ethic in a couple hours visit. That’s like a president do a fly-by of a disaster area and claiming to understand what those people are experiencing. This is a point that is lost by many. Live in that village with those people, as those people, for a year and then get back to us all on your findings.

Burt,

If Bush has it his way, Health Care, Education and our Economy will be more like Mexico’s.

There is a group of people that receive the most government assistance in the U.S.(They must be poor right?) and are very happy….Big Oil.

Realdebate,
Based upon your statement than by American making “The Rich” having to work for their money and depriving them of what they want and need is a good thing. So why is there so much resistance by Republican to redistribrute wealth? Soory you can’t have both ways in a society based on Equality.

RealDebate-
They are happier being poor because their system doesn’t encourage people to dream of rising above their station. We don’t have the happy poor they do because people believe in the American dream.

Which brings up a very important point: aren’t you guys the ones who place such an onus on competition? If so, why do you feel it’s at all in our nation’s interests for the poor to simply give up, and enjoy their poverty?

This isn’t about the “welfare gimmee” culture. this is about people’s right to believe things can get better, that there’s a floor in America that we don’t allow our citizens to drop through.

RealDebate makes some good observations.

Who can say about ‘happy’ but happiness is guaranteed for no-one and is indeed a function of attitude. Those people are surviving. It is all they know.

Does complete dependance on the State lead to happiness? Most would say no. If it is leading to future generations only knowing dependancy versus only knowing survival - it is a problem worth debating.

I knew that if the right-wingers thought about it hard enough, they’d come up with a really good reason for people to live in poverty.

realdebate, I hope your next post is about the benefits of AIDS, typhus, and the bubonic plague!

Anyone who can afford a trip to Cancun has no business commenting on poverty. End of line.

RealDebate,

I taught Enlish for 3 years in Chiapas, Mexico, and you have absolutley no idea what you are talking about.

The “authentic” village you stopped at from Cancun to Chichen Itza was anything but authentic. It was hand-picked by the bus line, so rich gringos can get off and grease their local economy. This is a common practice everywhere in Mexico. The poor people you saw were happy, because doe-eyed visitors like yourself are their lifeline. Trust me, locals know that if they can present themselves as “authentic” Mexicans, that they’ll be able to dupe tourists like yourself for more money.

If you want to see really poor, really authentic Mexicans, get off of the main roads, walk a few miles into lean-to mestizo camps where squatters are being pushed off of their land by the federales, and hope your head doesn’t get blown off in the process beacuse you represent everything they don’t have and have no hope of gaining access to. See if those people are as “happy” as the sanitized, “authentic” ones you saw on your air-conditioned bus ride to the ruins.

The “authentic” Mexicans you saw were not happy due to lack of welfare (the sheer stupidity of that argument speaks volumes about many Repubs)…they were happy because without a steady stream of dumb-ass Americans, they would probably starve to death. YOU are their welfare state.

Ms Schwamp,
Reread The Declaration of Independence. The right to “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” is an unalienable Right endowed to All Humans by their “Creator.” So why is it that the Right Wing Conservative want to not allow “The Poor” their unalienable Rights, yet preach to the rest of us about how great christians they are?

I have to agree with most of the posts here. Going on a vacation seeing some happy people and drawing conclusions is astoundingy intellectually naive. Live there for a few years off the main roads then write a story about it, if you get to the same conclusions fine, but my guess is you wont. This is like determining that Listz was an idiot because you can play some of the same chords he played in five minutes.

Henry

Life, Liberty and the PERSUSIT of happiness. How is anybody from the right wing or even the left in America depriving anyone of those things? (Unless you want to talk about criminal justice and/or abortion.)

Henry,

What does wealth have to do with “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”? Granted, below a certain point poverty may restrict those but full-time US minimum wage is high enough to pursue happiness, live, and be free.

Henry,
I haven’t even read it once that I can remember. But that aside, I didn’t say anything about curtailing anyone pursuing anything. There is a huge difference between the right to happiness and the right to pursue it

FYI, I am a liberal with a bit of a hard edge I guess. That means I can support RealDebate in this and not have to worry about the stigmatism of being ‘anti-poor’ that I think some conservatives worry about. On the other side, I think some liberals worry about the stigmatism of being anti-religion - unfair as the association may be.

I meant stigma, not stigmatism. Oops.

It is surprising how the left complains about attempts to force American vaules on other cultures, but then assumes that other cultures have the same materialistic values we do.

There’s a little truth on both sides.

Not everybody in the world wants their children to play video games all day while they go to work behind a desk in an air-conditioned office.

Neither, however, does everybody want to chop cane alongside their children in the blazing sun all day with no prospect of ever doing anything else for their entire lives.

But it is American values—and yes, those evil American corporations—which delivers us our life of relative ease which some (but by no means all) aspire to.

You shouldn’t assume that all those people glimpsed from a bus are “happy.” But it’s just as naive—and a different form of cultural bigotry— to assume that they want or need the things Americans can’t live without.

Jack & SirisC,
I’m glad you asked. While “The Rich” can enjoy getting on a plane today and flying off to Vegas for a weekend of fun, when was the last time you seen someone who is “Poor” be able to enjoy the same persuit of happiness? (BTW Jack thanks for correcting my spelling, never got that down quit right)

For this very reason The Founding Fathers realized that a person living in the Hills (i.e. Hillbilly) will have a different opinion of what a simple productive life is than a person living in the Penthouse on Park Ave. Therefore, to settle the argument, they said that every citizen has the right to be financially independent. In this manner the “Hillbilly” and the “City Folk” both could enjoy their unalienable rights. Now sure if my idea of enjoying myself is seating on the front porch watching the clouds go by I’ll need less money than the person who wants all the Bling-Bling that life has to offer, but we both have the ability to the persuit of happiness.

FYI, before anybody trys to jump my case about using the word Hillbilly, my mom was born and raised in southern Ohio so I wear that title proudly.

Ms Schwamp,
My appologizes if I stepped over the line, but I thought you were saying that people didn’t have the right to be happy and I’ll defend that right. However, as I told Jack and SirisC, how can you say they have a right to the persuit of happiness if they can not afford that which makes them happy?

Oh sure. Poor but Happy Mexicans. Poor but Ungrateful Americans. Maybe we should just KILL them all and have done with such unpleasantness, eh?

“Perhaps we could afford national health care if we had not been spending 7 trillion on a war on poverty we can never win over the last 40 years.”

Yeah kids! Wipe the 300 billion spent on a needless War in Iraq from your minds completely. And while you’re at it, forget the Preamble to the Constitution, too!
Promote the General Welfare? Nothing but a bunch of Liberal Crap that the founders never really meant anyway.
C’mon, let’s attack the War on Poverty!
It’s so much more fun ‘n’ gratifying to feed our own pin-headed, hard-hearted cruelties than it is to painfully dwell on the bloody lost cause of our Neocon leaders.

PS to Henry,
Jack was wrong, you were right. Correct spelling: pursuit

For the record people it was a three day trip, and I won it, I did not pay for it. So you can all drop the stupid rich republucan bit, it does not apply. I am a republican, but neither stupid or rich.

The difference was stark over the whole trip whether it was waiter, maid, shop keeper, airport security or resident in Mayan village, people worked and worked hard, many had little or nothing, but all were friendly and seemed happy.

Am I making a suggestion that we drop all our systems in favor of a Mexican model, of course not. I am suggesting we could all learn something from the way they go about their day to day lives though. Their sense of family is clearly so much stronger than ours we could learn much from it.

Live your principles, RealDebate! give away all your dough, move to the Yucatan, and you too can be poor and VERY happy.

As for “a war on poverty we can never win” - no more can we win a war of terror, but that doesn’t mean progress can’t be made. The national poverty rate was 14.0% when Reagan entered office, and hovered between 13%-15% until Clinton entered office in 1993. Poverty rates dropped from 15.1% to 11.3% at the end of his second term. Since then poverty rates have crept up again.

Adrienne,
Thanks for clearing up the spelling thing; however poverty can be beaten if we apply what was taught to us by our Founding Fathers.

Invest or be Taxed, it is as simple as that. If payroll tax is suppose to be a social insurance program than I can think of no better way to spend the money than allow each working American set aside a small part of this taxes for the purchase of U.S. Treasury Notes. For example, the $150 Billion our government is talking about the recovery cost for Katrina can be paid off easily by allowing every working American to set aside $.45/hr of their payroll taxes for a year. This way the Money Supply bucket has a steady flow of funds going into it and each American has about $960.00/yr added to their portfolia. Over a natural course of time even the Poorest paid worker would raise out over poverty because the worth of The Dollar would become so strong.

The question is what values do other cultures have that we lack. Family and family responsibility is a big one.
There ia a poem about a man named Richard Cory. You should remember it from High School. He had looks, position, and wealth. The people in the village thought he had it all. He went home one day and put a bullet through his head.
This is not a left or right question. It is a question of what values others have that we lack.
Katrina made us think but deep down each one of us are glad it is not us. Each one of us think we could have gotten out of there in time. H5N1 will touch all of us. There will be no safety zone. How will our values see us thorugh this time. Will America become stronger or will our way of life be altered in ways we don’t want to think about?

RealDebate:

I took that same trip a couple years back, and was struck by a comment made by an ignorant fool sitting behind me on the bus. When someone remarked on how shabby the huts were that these people called homes, this guy comments, “Well, I’d like to compare mortgage payments with them.”

Talk about not understanding!

What I’ve noticed is that there are many poor people in this world, or people who have been through turmoil, who maintain a sense of dignity and happiness despite what has gone on around them.

I believe that in our country, we have as a nation become dependant on government to supply our needs, and therefore we get angry if and when it doesn’t. I think we were better off as a nation when we depended on ourselves and our families.

Of course, there is a middle ground that I’d like to see. Welfare for those who need it, but with a big urge to become self dependant. Health care for those who need, but a society where simply taking a drug (rather than solving the actual problem) wasnt the answer.

Very good insight on your part about the family issue as well. I am very wealthy in that I have two wonderful and healthy children and a wonderful and healthy wife. Money can’t buy that.

Please don’t tell me: the nest Republican Family Value is… don’t worry, be happy.

That’s sheer brilliance!

(I think you might want to send these post around to a few friends before putting them up for response. Let me guess, you have a ‘friend’ that’s…. poor…???)

JBOD

“I believe that in our country, we have as a nation become dependant on government to supply our needs, and therefore we get angry if and when it doesn?t. I think we were better off as a nation when we depended on ourselves and our families.”

Should I take the above comment to mean that you oppose FEMA doing anything to help the victims of Hurricane Katrina? Shouldn’t they depend upon themselves and their families to drain, dig out and repair their cities, not the feds? How dare thet get angry when the government abandons them to thirst, hunger and anarchy! They should’ve depended upon themselves or their families to protect them from natural disasters. They should’ve made it out of New Orleans or Gulfport on their own. If they can’t swim, let ‘em drown, right? Another example of compassionate conservatism.

How do you feel about the Interstate Highway System? Securities and Exchange Commission? The Veterans Administration? The FBI? The Army?

Guess its every man (and his family) for himself in your America.

RealDebate,

If your premise is that poverty can make people happy, then shouldn’t slavery make them ecstatic?

In his book “The 7 Habits of Successful People,” Stephen Covey talks about a process of self actualization that partly involves three stages of development in a person: Dependence, Independence, and Interdependence. An Adult person who is stuck in a state of dependency regardless of is lifestyle is going to feel his lack of self worth and be a lot less happy than a person who has earned his own lifestyle and has become emotionally and financially independent. Interdependence is even better because he has to work well and effectively with other people and that has a lot of rewards on many levels.

I think that people in the US tend to be materially spoiled and have an entitlement mindset that causes several big problems: mounting personal debt on every level; for middle class and upper class people, dependence on family for way too long a period, for poorer people, dependence on government handouts for way too long. TV and the media contribute to this in a big way. So you get these people 30-40 years old still dependent on Mom & Dad or on Gov’t thinking that they’re entitled to the same lifestyle as the people they see on TV. No wonder they are miserable.

Nobody is more pro-wealth than I am. I make my living helping people with their investments, so I produce material gain for them as much as I can. But real happiness comes from the satisfacion of acheiving a goal, solving a problem, helping another person, things that take real effort. How satisfying would it be to have a tennis trophy for a game you never won?

Having traveled and lived in Southern Africa and Latin America myself, I do think that a lot of the poorer people there have a well cultivated interdependence with family and community. Also, the sense of entitlement is absent for the most part because they spend a lot more time working and playing than watching TV.

We can learn from them. An active, balanced life even if materially poor can be more satisfying than a richer but more passive life.

-Monica

The best way to eliminate poverty to to give people jobs.
O, excuse me I just mentioned a bad word to liberials.

In the world of some Republicans, the greatest threat is those lucky-duckies (unfortunately, somebody on the WSJ Op-Ed page actually used those words) who will just leach off the economy while leading prosperous lives off the government. This while the millionaires and billionaires inflate their salaries over thirty years by a factor of ten, while only giving their workers 75% more.

There are people working full-time jobs in factories who have to resort to food stamps and and other government programs to get by.

Fact of the matter is, ten years of Republican legislative majority and four years of Bush have left this country with an economy where how hard you work no longer dictates how well you are rewarded. Where people get jacked around on whether they’re paid overtime, or whether they even get paid full time by executives who gladly reward themselves for their great work.

The question is not whether poor can be depended upon to carry their weight, given the chance. The question is whether the leadership of the powerful can be depended upon to serve most American’s interests. If the past few years has been any demonstration, the answer is no, and accordingly, the powerful in America are not generally seen as benefactors.

Leadership is not checking off the items on your agenda as you try to take America in the direction you want it to go. Leadership is not making highfalutin’ speeches and giving yourself better bonuse while cutting your worker’s jobs

Leadership is recognizing that you are one of a group, a part of it, and making your interests and theirs one and the same. You don’t profit unless they profit too. There’s nothing inherently wrong with corporations or with government. It’s the performance of those involved that matters.

Ron:
“The best way to eliminate poverty to to give people jobs.
O, excuse me I just mentioned a bad word to liberials.”

That’s not a bad word to Liberals, Ron. In fact, this particular Liberal thinks it’d be great if W would actually start creating some! I’d also like to see the word “living wage” in connection with those jobs however…

Well said, Stephen.

- 1/3 of the homeless in the US are veterans

- over 50% of the poor are children

- the average person on government assistance is helped for an average of 16 months

- most people who are poor have full time jobs.

I’m not saying that there are not people who spend their lives on support… just that it is NOT the norm, and

the idea of giving jobs to get rid of poverty is really missing … reality. The best way to get rid of poverty to pay people a livable wage.

The relationship between feeling fine and making dough is actually being pretty well researched these days. One of the best places to look is in the World Values Survey. Generally speaking, richer societies have a higher average number of happy people. But the correlation isn’t one to one. For example, the folks of the Netherlands have a lower GNP per capita but tend to happier than their American counterparts. Those Norwegians who we like to think of as depressed in their cold, semi-socialist hinterlands are actually happier than we with our “pursuit-of-happiness” culture. On the other hand, those in former communist societies are a lot less likely to be happy (and are not exactly raking it in, either).

Moral of the story: money can’t buy you happiness, but it’s a good start.

One serious clarification to be made about the about World Values Survey piece I set down above. Obviously, those living in the Netherlands aren’t Norwegians. But those living in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Demark and Iceland (that is, what we commonly refer to as Scandinavians) are all somewhat happier than Americans. The Dutch too, who aren’t in that subgrouping.

Adrienne
That’s not a bad word to Liberals, Ron. In fact, this particular Liberal thinks it’d be great if W would actually start creating some! I’d also like to see the word “living wage” in connection with those jobs however…

It’s not the Presidents job to create jobs.
What do you call a living wage?

—-
It’s not the Presidents job to create jobs
—-

Then why the heck was Bush taking so much credit for the jobs created just before the election?

Livable Wage: a hourly rate or salary that keeps the employee at or above the poverty level. (Why is this so hard for people to understand… seems very simple.)

Real Debate, 1) they don’t contribute much to the economy do they? Can’t no money. Big Problem! Big difference between why America is a great economic giant and Mexico is not.

2) Mexico has had a number of violent revolutions, and the government is corrupt, the corruption rising from villages just as you describe. They may look happy, but their young quickly learn where the money is, the Mexican mafia and other organized crime org’s now plaguing our own bordertowns and spilling over into a problem for our Border Patrol.

It is typical of American tourists to visit other nations and view that nation through their American experience and view them as so happy, so poor, and so much worse, better than we are here by our standards, without even a thought let alone to research of the history of that nation they visit. No wonder since the 1950’s movies and books with titles like “The Ugly American” continue to be written, produced, and sell for their relevancy. Es no problema! Tu es Norte Americano.

They may look happy, but their young quickly learn where the money is, the Mexican mafia and other organized crime org?s now plaguing our own bordertowns and spilling over into a problem for our Border Patrol.

David,

You might want to cut RealDebate some slack here. I was looking over the most recent “subjective well-being” data from the University of Michigan, which ranked countries by happiness and life satisfaction scores. What is says is that Mexico is indeed quite a happy culture, second only to Puerto Rico. Here are the top nations:

Puerto Rico 4.67
Mexico 4.32
Denmark 4.24
Ireland 4.16
Iceland 4.15
Switzerland 4.00
N. Ireland 3.97
Colombia 3.94
Netherlands 3.86
Canada 3.76
Austria 3.69
El Salvador 3.67
Venezuela 3.58
Luxembourg 3.52
U.S. 3.47

So, it seems the moral of the story is more complex than the older data (which generally left out Latin America) indicates. There’s something about Latin culture that really does seem to be correlated with subjective well-being. So, to amend my previous statement:

Money can’t buy you happiness, but it sure doesn’t hurt. And neither does living in a lot of Latin cultures. The happiest folks in the world? Puerto Ricans, who apparently get a double dose of good fortune: the wealth associated with being part of the U.S. combined with the satisfaction associated with being part of the Latin culture.

Check out the numbers yourselves. Some interesting reading there.

David, Mexico’s last violent revolution was, I believe, in the 1920s. France, Russia, Spain (most of Europe actually) has had violent revolutions more recently than that.

But you’re still right—Mexico has a huge problem with corruption, crime and bad government. In rural areas and small towns, however, life is really very good compared to the border towns and parts of Mexico City.

The key word in those “subjective happiness” rankings has to be “subjective.” Namely the subjective criteria and agenda being advanced by the poll’s authors.

It’s funny, isn’t, how millions of those from the second ranked country risk leave their families and risk their lives to flee to the fifteenth ranked country. To escape from so much happiness, I imagine.

This holds true with so many of the rankings put forth on a number of issues be the UN and other organizations. They create these rankings based on a few criteria they’re using to make some point, and voila—rankings which anyone can see bear no resemblance to reality.

Ron:
“It�s not the Presidents job to create jobs.”

Uh, sure it is. Bush claimed that his tax cuts and the GOP’s favorite trickle down theory would automatically improve the economy and create jobs. It didn’t. Trickle down doesn’t work.

“What do you call a living wage?”

What tony said. To which I’ll add, that’s it’s just the thing to keep people off of public assistance — meaning our tax dollars get to be spent on things that improve all of our lives.

Another much-publicized example of these half-baked rankings is the infant-mortality rate.

I’ve heard a number of commentators decry the fact that even Cuba supposedly surpasses the US in its infant mortality rate, and some have even used this as an argument for socializing medicine. After all, Cuba has socialized medicine. Isn’t our higher infant mortality rate a disgrace in comparison? All around the world people repeat this charge, but what gets lost in this debate is that the ranking is total nonsense—in fact, the opposite of the truth.

The skewed rankings arise because Cuba (and other third world nations) lack the technology and resources to try and save premature babies. A baby born too early simply dies and is recorded as a fetal death. In the US, however, we’ve made incredible technological advances in this area and
will try to save even a very premature baby against the odds. Many babies survive that would never have a chance anywhere else in the world.

But when efforts to save them fail, they get recorded in the infant mortality column because they were recorded as having been born, and behold: America, because of its very advances, can be accused of falling further and further behind.

You guys still don’t get it. It is not poverty that makes people happy, how short-sided that is.

Working hard, having a sense of family and having basic needs met by the labor of your hands, that is the key.

So many who are given so much and do so little in return for said support are miserable. The difference was stark and quite illuminating.

I think I agree with you in part, Realdebate.

For most of human history, people didn’t have the things that people now assume to be their rightful due as human beings.

Until recently, who ever believed that they were entitled to a vast and all-encompassing social net that educated you, fed you, rescued you within hours from natural disasters, prevented others from saying mean things to you based on your race, religion and sexual orientation, gave you medical care and a retirement plan? And all of this with or without your own willingness to lift a finger on your own behalf?

How was anyone “happy” before five minutes ago, I wonder, when all of this was promised?

More and more of us are disconnected from not only human history but reality. The left in particular seems to want the goverment to wipe our bottoms for us and sing us a lullaby at bedtime. Unfortunately, the infantilism of America is a growing instead of a diminishing problem.

Sanger and RealDebate, one thing I think you are missing is culture. Mexico is not a highly mobile society. America is. This one fact, accounts for a lot of subjective happiness. In Mexico, living with extended families, great grandparents to current new borns all living close together, engenders a subjective fulfillment that has been waning in America for more than half a century. This is a cultural thing, but, it also has economic underpinnings. Work in one place in Mexico is little better than work in one’s parents village or town, hence, the motive to leave one’s extended family is much lower in Mexico. Very much higher in America where vocational success is a higher priority than proximity to the extended family, a value interestingly enough fostered by parents, driving their children to leave for the vocational rewards rather than stay.

We still see this dichotomy in American with immigrant families who open restaurants or stores where 3 generations of family members all take their living from that family business. Of course, as education level increases in future generations of immigrant families, they become Americanized and extended family cohesion weakens. Depression and lonliness is epidemic in America, very likely a result of this loss of extended family context.

To extend my last remarks while responding to David’s: I think that the small town or rural Mexican culture has much to be desired over parts of American culture for the very reasons David mentions.

Connectedness to family, community, and established traditions are valued more than jumping into the rat race. Working the land, self-reliance, enjoying the direct fruits of your labor—these are all very satisfying things.

There are vestiges of this, still, in parts of rural America. And where it rears its head, it tends to be mocked by both the media and the political culture. The traditional values which bind communities together—which not only give but ASK something from each indvidual—have its last vestiges in the conservative values which the America left in particular often hell-bent on destroying on the level of ethics and responsibility—too often, I’ll add, with the aid and enthusiastic cooperation of segments of the right.

Sanger, it is not that the left is intent on destroying an agrarian and agricultural past of extended families, farm life, and community. It is that their reality is in the city, suburbs, and vocations not tied to the land. They advocate for policies and solutions that fit their existence. Conservatives advocate for policies and solutions that come from a past that no longer exists in America, except as you say, in those midwestern farm towns and western ranch communities.

These are precisely the arguments that turn people to the Green Party which wants to rebuild America’s economy based on the earth, land, air, water, and self sufficiency that will take Americans back to the land. I am not advocating the Green Party, for they truly lack any sense of a practical plan to achieve their goals without destroying America’s economic future. But, I can see why their philosophy appeals to their constituents. America will never return traditional 19th century extended family lifestyles and their consequent values and traditions. Which makes effective leadership in America a bankrupt resource. It’s a Brave New World and writers from H.D. Thoreau to Aldous Huxley have been warning us for more than a century what it looks like. Well, it’s here, and guess what? We don’t like it. But, now, we can’t change it.

Well, David, I find the things you mention as terrifying as you do. And I know that my conservative values have much to do with what may (no ultimatley WILL be) a futile desire to preserve the stability, independence, and interconnectedness between land, culture, family and tradition which through our nation’s history have made us such a success—not only on the material level but the spiritual.

Real Debate,

While your example may be questionable, your premise has the ring of truth.
In ‘95, and ‘96, due to work, I spent most of my time in Korea, Tiwan, Indonesia, China, and the Phillipines.
Garden spots all.
In Yongin, Korea, I observed old women washing clothes in the river, this was no show.
In Manila, the shacks people lived in outside of the city all had clean clothes hanging from clotheslines, all of the folks I met were clean and happy, and they were dirt poor.
They knew that I was staying at one of the nicer hotels in Manila and took a taxi to work with them, and it made no difference to them.
These folks all had dreams of better things, but were happy with their lives just the same.

Indonesia was just brutal, especialy Jakarta.

These folks don’t know from subjective or objective. They live as they have lived for centuries. That is not to say that their standard of living couldn’t come up a bit more.

We in this country are weenies. We just don’t realize how good we have it here, hell, even the poor in this country have it better than half the rest of the world.

It’s hard to bitch about not having a TV to someone that has neither electricity or indoor plumbing.

Chuck:

I’m finding it hard to believe that you actually read my entire post. It pisses me off when someone takes half of what I say without looking at the rest of it. Below is the quote you cited in your response, in which you questioned whether I would want FEMA, the Army, the FBI, the highway system etc to exist at all.

Following the quote, in bold, is what I had written next. Had you read that paragraph, you would have understood how wrong and irrelevant your assumptions were.

“I believe that in our country, we have as a nation become dependant on government to supply our needs, and therefore we get angry if and when it doesn?t. I think we were better off as a nation when we depended on ourselves and our families.”
Of course, there is a middle ground that I’d like to see. Welfare for those who need it, but with a big urge to become self dependant.

Sanger, the one ray of hope I have is the simple fact that I as a liberal and you as a conservative, can agree so completely on what we would like to see. And it appears to me that we can agree because we both have a knowledge of history and the world about us. I believe if we can push ourselves and others to recognizing that hope lies in education and knowledge, and voting leaders into office with education and knowledge for all as among their highest priorities, then hope can live and change reality. If I stop believing that, I will have to move to rural Manitoba, Canada. Makes hoping, writing, and voting a much more desireable option. :-)

David, I’ve always felt that left, right or center we tend to share very similar aspirations about the hope and vision of America, though ideology and somewhat illusory cultural identifications based on superficial differences too easily fuels a rather disfunctional family relationship between people who ought to be stressing their common goals instead of their differences (whew, long sentence).

The right degrades our spiritual heritage by persecuting gays based on a misreading of the Bible and by contributing to the me-first materialistic version of the most extreme versions of capitalism (though this is less prevelant that many on the left want to believe).

The left degrades it by denying the relation between responsibility and reward and demanding that our spiritual dimensions of existence—especially those which demand responsible behavior—be drowned in their own materialistic and fashionably hedonistic version of reality. Who is right? Neither and both.

JBID,
I have to disagree with your Middle Ground. While our Capitalistic system can only employee about 95% of our population, IMO we do not need Welfare or Unemployeement Insurance. Instead, our money would be better spent by creating a Community Work Program. In this manner, our community leaders would have a workforce to take care of things around the city and/or county which have been negelected for years.

By making work for our citizens like repairing senior citizens homes, cleaning local parks, etc. not only will we impower those citizens who truely need temporary assistance, but we would weed out “The Freeloaders” by offering a paycheck that only met the very basics of life (shelter, food, & utilities).

H.

I understand your comments and I don’t disagree with them. But I do think there will always be some portion of society that simply cannot contribute to society in a productive manner. And I think society needs to be compassionate enough to help this group out.

What has happened is that some who CAN contribute have infiltrated the ranks of those who cannot. There are some who choose to not contribute. There are some who feel society owes them. It is these people that I dont want to support.

What has also happened is that as a society, we have become too forgiving in allowing people to get away with things. I went to college with a young lady whose mother died when she was young—she used this as an excuse for many of her bad behaviors. Some accepted this and felt sorry for her, thereby enabling her rather than helping her.

I believe I helped her. I did so by not accepting her rationales and excuses, and by holding her accountable. I had a platform to do so, having lost my father at a young age. I don’t believe enabling was truly helping her, though it undoubtedly felt good for her and even for those who wanted to help.

But it would be unfair to do away with support systems for those who truly need them. The hard thing is to restrict it to those who truly are in need.

JBOD,
Although you are right about a small percentage of Americans that through no fault of their own can not add positively to the function of our society; however, even most handicaped citizens can answer the phone. And for those who’s disability limits them from taking part in the function of society, history has taught us that we can do alot to help them live a simple productive life.

Visually impaired citizens was once thought to be unable to work, yet today many programs do just that. No, unless a person is shown through their medical records to have a problem that would cause them more harm to work than America should find them a job to do. In this manner, those who Can contribute to the function of society, but don’t want to will be found out. And after all if you do not want to work for your supper isn’t that what charity is for?

The left degrades it by denying the relation between responsibility and reward and demanding that our spiritual dimensions of existence?especially those which demand responsible behavior?be drowned in their own materialistic and fashionably hedonistic version of reality.

sanger,

Could you be more specific here? It was Prez. Clinton who reformed the welfare system, as I recall. I’m wondering if you could link to particular platform or even a concrete example of what you mean, because this just isn’t the way I see the left operating these days.

Fortunately people are resilient and will make the bast of a bad situation and do what they have to do to survive. That is exactly why we still thrive as a species.

However, it seems that through our great prosperity in the United States we have set up a system that allows people to stay at the survival level and not ever thrive. Indeed the government in it’s benevolence has fostered the idea of dependence on the “System”. And that system, of government, jobs, and pork barrel initiatives has made itself into a convoluted and bloated monster who also needs the system to survive.

There will never be a quick solution to the welfare system this government has inflicted upon its population in the name of compassion. Only are we now realizing that it is as uncompassionate and demoralizing to the populace it is “supposed” to be helping as any type of indentured survitude any other society has ever thought up. And, we keep doing it in the name of compassion!!!! I am angry about it. But I am not sure there is any answer that will not make this country look pompous, and neglectful to the very citizens we must somehow release from this “compassionate mess”.

But the idea that somehow people in squalor are happy is just ridiculous.

However, all of you non travelors out there - it is just not that expensive to go to Cancun - try it!!!!

Fact of the matter is, what Republicans are trying to do is recreate the labor and social cultures of the late 19th, early 20th century.

The reality is, these are dead worlds, dead societies. That is not to say that certain principles don’t remain true over time. It is to say that they can no longer be properly expressed as they wish it to be. We are the America that comes of being a world power for most of the last century, of having become more cosmopolitan and liberal in the wake of the Great Depression and World War Two, and yes, of having undergone the deregulation and bureaucratic muddying of the twenty five years of Republican resurgence.

We see poverty and despair in the rest of the world that simply isn’t possible here. There are some who look at the third world and envy the low labor costs, the seemingly direct application of power, and the unbridled political power that industry can employ in these countries. Fact is, though, these countries are poor and backwards precisely because of such arrangements.

America has the power it does because it’s citizen have always had some measure of protection from those with the power in society. The military is governed by the people, not the other way around. The Political parties, entrenched as they are, cannot rule any other party illegal and certainly cannot surpress free speech that doesn’t favor their party. The Federal government itself is elected, appointed by elected officials, and confirmed by others, and therefore are as accountable as people are willing to make them.

The weak link is business, but even they have to live with regulation and unions to some extent. Ultimately, there are few powers in American that can go as out of control as they can in the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, there are those who see these protections as a barrier to the all out war that stands as their vision of competition. Well, I’m sorry if some of us think that America is better off as a first world country than it is as a third world nation. We don’t need “the happy poor” We need people motivated to do better.

As for those who think that the urban poor enjoy being dependent, I’d say look or listen to a rap video. The audience for this music are the urban poor. What do they have? Money, Jewelry, female companionship (must I spell it out?), and all the other material delights that come with money. These people are motivated, we just got to give them a clear way out of the ghettos.

To everyone advocating a livable wage, how do you determine that? A livable wage for a single person is different than one for a married couple, which is different than a couple with 2 kids.

Based off of the US cencus definitions of poverty, I’m going to give a rough estimate of what different households need to make per hour to support themselves.

I’m going to assume 252 days (no weekends, and 9 holidays) out of the year worked (2016 hours :
8 or more adults and 1 kid : $42039 /year = $20.85 /hr
9 adult and 0 kids : $41836 /year = $20.75 /hr
7 or more adults and 2 kids : $41480 /year = $20.58 /hr
6 or more adults and 3 kids : $41010 /year = $20.34 /hr
5 or more adults and 4 kids : $40240 /year = $19.96 /hr
4 or more adults and 5 kids : $39179 /year = $19.43 /hr
3 or more adults and 6 kids : $38220 /year = $18.96 /hr
2 or more adults and 7 kids : $37983 /year = $18.84 /hr
1 or more adults and 8 or more kids : $36520 /year = $18.12 /hr
7 adult and 1 kid : $35086 /year = $17.40 /hr
8 adult and 0 kids : $34778 /year = $17.25 /hr
6 adult and 2 kids : $34454 /year = $17.09 /hr
5 adult and 3 kids : $33901 /year = $16.82 /hr
4 adult and 4 kids : $33115 /year = $16.43 /hr
3 adult and 5 kids : $32119 /year = $15.93 /hr
6 adult and 1 kid : $31290 /year = $15.52 /hr
7 adult and 0 kids : $31096 /year = $15.42 /hr
2 adult and 6 kids : $31082 /year = $15.42 /hr
1 adult and 7 kids : $30818 /year = $15.29 /hr
5 adult and 2 kids : $30621 /year = $15.19 /hr
4 adult and 3 kids : $30154 /year = $14.96 /hr
3 adult and 4 kids : $29285 /year = $14.53 /hr
2 adult and 5 kids : $28271 /year = $14.02 /hr
1 adult and 6 kids : $27159 /year = $13.47 /hr
5 adult and 1 kid : $27133 /year = $13.46 /hr
6 adult and 0 kids : $27025 /year = $13.41 /hr
4 adult and 2 kids : $26573 /year = $13.18 /hr
3 adult and 3 kids : $26037 /year = $12.92 /hr
2 adult and 4 kids : $25241 /year = $12.52 /hr
1 adult and 5 kids : $24768 /year = $12.29 /hr
4 adult and 1 kid : $23838 /year = $11.82 /hr
5 adult and 0 kids : $23497 /year = $11.66 /hr
3 adult and 2 kids : $23108 /year = $11.46 /hr
2 adult and 3 kids : $22543 /year = $11.18 /hr
1 adult and 4 kids : $22199 /year = $11.01 /hr
3 adult and 1 kid : $19803 /year = $9.82 /hr
4 adult and 0 kids : $19484 /year = $9.66 /hr
1 adult and 3 kids : $19223 /year = $9.54 /hr
2 adult and 2 kids : $19157 /year = $9.50 /hr
1 adult and 2 kids : $15219 /year = $7.55 /hr
2 adult and 1 kid : $15205 /year = $7.54 /hr
3 adult and 0 kids : $14776 /year = $7.33 /hr
1 adult and 1 kid : $13020 /year = $6.46 /hr
1 senior and 1 kid : $12971 /year = $6.43 /hr
2 adult and 0 kids : $12649 /year = $6.27 /hr
2 seniors and 0 kids : $11418 /year = $5.66 /hr
1 adult and 0 kids : $9827 /year = $4.87 /hr
1 senior and 0 kids : $9060 /year = $4.49 /hr

so, apparently, minimum wage full time is more than enough for a single person to not be in poverty, but not enough for 2 people. That makes a certain amount of sense, why should minimum wage be higher than what a single person needs to not be in poverty? Granted, some areas are more expensive to live in than others, so state, county or city wide minimum wages may be needed in some areas. (Problem with only a city or county doing so is that they may get people applying for jobs that live in the neighboring city/county where cost of living is less.

SirisC,
You are quoting poverty level figures as livable wages. Check out the Blue Section Obscene Inequity which is in the archives. The Livable Wage in Casper Wyo. is $2,607.00 while a livable wage in Boston Mass. is $5,388.00 for a family of 4 (2 parents 2 children). However, according to HUD and our Financial System a livable wage is 30% of a household income.

Considering that the aberage rent/payment for a decent place to live is around $800.00/mth nationally, minimum wage doesn’t come close.

David:
“it is not that the left is intent on destroying an agrarian and agricultural past of extended families, farm life, and community. It is that their reality is in the city, suburbs, and vocations not tied to the land. They advocate for policies and solutions that fit their existence. Conservatives advocate for policies and solutions that come from a past that no longer exists in America, except as you say, in those midwestern farm towns and western ranch communities. These are precisely the arguments that turn people to the Green Party which wants to rebuild America’s economy based on the earth, land, air, water, and self sufficiency that will take Americans back to the land.”

Perhaps they turn to the Green Party because it’s an entirely holistic concept? After all, people are capable of living “green” everywhere (and many already do). Urban, suburban and rural — doesn’t really matter, it can be done.
When you think about it, the Green Party is a place where many of the progressive ideas of Liberals and the wisdom of being Conservative (in the real and true sense of that word) actually converge. Well, that’s my opinion anyway (and I’ll readily admit I don’t go along with every idea that comes from my party).

“they truly lack any sense of a practical plan to achieve their goals without destroying America�s economic future.”

David, would you mind elaborating on this statement?
I honestly feel you couldn’t be more wrong here.
To suggest that the development of renewable energy solutions is impractical, or would automatically destroy America’s economic future makes absolutely no sense to me at all.

On the contrary, I think it makes excellent sense for our economic future, because the risk of relying primarily on imported energy is clearly becoming an enormous liability for us. Oil prices have doubled in less than two years to the current rate of more than $60 per barrel — and thats bad for the current economy and spells nothing but trouble for the nations future. (And to tie this to the topic of this article, rising oil prices always have a disproportionate impact on the middle class and the poor.)
Add to this the growing instablity of the Middle East, and the increasing evidence that global warming will continue to negatively impact our economy, and you have two more reasons it makes perfect sense for America to start seriously developing renewable energy now.

I believe that:
1. Large Hydro and Large Wind and Geothermal power for large grid electricity,
2. Solar photovoltaics, Small Hydro, Small Wind power and Biogas for local electricity,
3. And Ethanol and Biodiesel for agriculture and transportation
are all extremely practical solutions that can and should be achieved through the combined efforts of government and the private sector.

Adrienne, the Green Party lacks any practical plan for making the transition from globally competitive markets as a foundation for our economy to a domestic largely decorporatized earth based supply and demand economy as the foundation. If they had power, their constituents would revoke the underpinnings of our current economy long before replacing it with domestic green and family based industry.

One only need to read the comments and articles by their constituents to see that this is so. Their passion against the corporatized global competitive marketplace would lead to destructive economic policies long before our nation is ready to make the transition.

David:
If you wish to convince me (and truly, I wouldn’t mind being convinced), then you’re going to have to show me exactly where (or perhaps who within) the Reform Party has got a better plan to make such a transition. From looking at the platform on their website, I get the sense that they are concerned about the environment, but don’t truly ever intend to make the subject a major priority in their plans for economic reform.

RealDebate,
You went to one of the largest tourist draaws in Mexico. What kind of lifestyle do you think people in this area are living. Look at similar places in the US. If you assume that if we take away welfare from Americans more will work, you’re wrong. Crime would rise plain and simple. Homelessness would take over. The standard has been set. The only thing we could do is change the name of the welfare program and call it something else.

Oh and all the if we hadn’t done this whole war on poverty thing we could have health care. If we wouldn’t have done a lot of things we could have health care. You’re on the right here so to hear you say a war on poverty is bad isn’t a surprise. I just think it’s funny you didn’t mention our current war and the previous one that were wastes. You said we shouldn’t of given money to the poor when all this death and destructution is going on around us.

SirisC,

If you think minimum wage is adequate, why don’t you quit your job, come out to California, and get a job at McDonald’s. Don’t be surprised that you can’t even get 40 hours a week. Most companies that pay minimum wage restrict the number of employees that are fulltime in order to avoid having to provide health benefits as well. So you’ll need to get a second minimum wage job to round out the 40 hours a week.

If you decide to live in San Francisco (fat chance but you never know), then the only housing you’ll be able to afford is either an SRO in a Tenderloin residential hotel, or a 400 square foot studio apartment also in the Tenderloin.

The closest market will be the liquor store down the street that charges premium prices for food items. The closest grocery store will be miles away, so have fun hauling your groceries on the bus because you won’t be able to afford a car in SF on minimum wage.

Does this sound like a happy existence? I can tell you from experience that it’s not. Minimum wage is not enough to keep you out of poverty. And it’s certainly not enough to get you out of poverty.

Ok, so assuming you base livable wage off of cost of living in an area, do you base it off of a single person, or a family with 2 parents and 2 kids (and with 1 parent working or both)?

Michael,

I’ve already lived on minimum wage working at a location that rarely gave more than 30 hours a week. Granted, I wasn’t living in an expensive place like California, I was living in Orem, Ut and I rode a bike to work, grocery store, etc. And for long trips, I took the bus. The only thing I really wished I had while living on that amount was a computer, I didn’t mind not having a car since it was so easy to get around.

SirisC,
Basing a livable wage on location instead of out of Washington is smarter. There are serveral reasons for this, but the most useful one and easiest to deal with is the 30% of a household income. By carefully building homes and apartments that meet the income range of the citizens in the area, everyone can benefit.

The local housing industry makes money, the merchants make more profits due to a larger consumer base, and the financial institutes make money because each will be able to save a little. Not only will these groups prosper, but local government will not have to increase taxes to pay for public assistance and general welfare.

Additionally, every citizen will grow out of this survival mood that leads to crime and hate over the years. Thereby raising heir children up in a community and society that seems to care. Yes, not every American can be saved from themselve, but to continue down a road that we as a society knows does not work well thats just plain stupid and tat is not an unalienable Right.

RealDebate gets off the bus in an authentic village in Mexico and talks to poor people. How quaint!
When was the last time he got off the bus in an authentic ghetto in the U.S. to talk to poor people?

Henry,

so your essentially saying that a living wage should be created by doing 2 things.

1 : Building housing affordable for those living in the area.

2 : raise the lower end spectrum of the income so that instead of showing income of population as a normal distribution you can show it as a Chi distribution where k = 1 or chi^2 distribution where k = 3.

h:

By making work for our citizens like repairing senior citizens homes, cleaning local parks, etc. not only will we impower those citizens who truely need temporary assistance, but we would weed out “The Freeloaders” by offering a paycheck that only met the very basics of life (shelter, food, & utilities).

I like the concept of a community work program like this, but I would question why these types of jobs should only pay enough to meet the “very basics” of life? It seems to me that if one does an honest day’s work, which this should be, one should also get an honest day’s wage; and not just the bare minimum one needs to survive. Even prisoners receive additional wages for their labor, while their basic needs of shelter, food, and utilities are met by the state.

But what would you consider an honest day’s wage?

I’ve seen 1800’s era pictures of negro slaves smiling (apply your logic here:_______). Your ability to derive causality from correlation and pedestrian observation is astounding. Once again, conservatives show a frightening grasp of science.

tony
Its not the Presidents job to create jobs

Then why the heck was Bush taking so much credit for the jobs created just before the election?

The same reason Clonton took so much credit when he was running for reelection. Politics.

Livable Wage: a hourly rate or salary that keeps the employee at or above the poverty level. (Why is this so hard for people to understand… seems very simple.)

It’s not hard for most people but I’ve noticed liberials think employees should be making more than their employeer.

Jarandhel,
Good question and thats why it is good to debate all the facts using reason and logic.

The reason for the minimum liveable wage is to inspire our citizens to move into private sector. As far as prisoners go, they are a captive audience and should be treated differently. However, you do bring up another point that needs to be consider if America goes to a Community Work Program. And that is those citizens that through no fault of their own are unacceptable to work in the private sector. Yet, still I have a problem paying them more than what would make them economically viable and financially independent over time.

—-
It’s not hard for most people but I’ve noticed liberials think employees should be making more than their employeer.
—-

Wow. And you came up with this logic all on your own.

Tony,
By making it so every American has more money to spend (ie Spendable Cash), most owners would acyually make more money the old fashion “Through Profits.” Instead of this insane idea of “Cutting Cost.” That idea worked 25 years ago because of the waste of corporation spending, but today most business owners don’t have nothing left to cut.

I think the point here is that “Happiness is an attitude”. Money does not always bring happiness and self worth. Our vacation to Ireland this summer really drove it home for me. IRL is a very techno advanced country with all the advatages of the modern world. Poeple there enjoy life and appreciate other humans and their environment. Most people are not “rich”. Most I would say are what we would call “poor” or “middle class” by US standards. And yet the general attitude of most people is that life is good. They don’t need/epect/want More,Bigger,Faster.

realdebate, I hope your next post is about the benefits of AIDS, typhus, and the bubonic plague!

AIDS is very good for Amerika, it kills all the fags and promiscuous heathen non-christians!

people believe in the American dream.

And the American Dream is alive and well! In this land of opportunity, anything is possible!!

* A poor black boy can grow up to be a rich white woman, molest little boys and get off scott free.

* The GOP can hire Saudis to fly planes into towers in NYC, to mask a pre-planned demolition to strengthen their hold over the nation, shred the documents and get away with it.

* A chimpanzee can grow up and become president….. TWICE!

* Pat Robertson can threaten the life of a leader of another sovereign nation and get away with it.

* You can get blown in the oval office and almost get away with it.

* You can take the nation to war for a different reason every month and get away with it.

Only in Amerika!!!

Ron:
“Its not hard for most people but Ive noticed liberials think employees should be making more than their employeer.”

tony:
“Wow. And you came up with this logic all on your own.”

:^) Gotta love those sweeping generalizations. What’s really funny about this Tony, is how both you and I are somehow managing to run our own businesses! Btw, did you notice how Ron completely ignored my reply about how if Bush’s economic policies actually worked, they should be creating jobs, but that the truth is “trickle-down” never has, and never will create any?

Henry, I agree.
Taylor, your post totally cracked me up — thanks!

David, I’m still waiting for that Reform Party info from you. Do they have any innovative ideas on reforming the energy industry to reflect the present economy, as well as our environmental reality? I wasn’t being facetious, I really am interested to know if your party is working on that kind of a plan — because if they’ve got a good one, I might actually consider switching parties since there are so many other things I agree with in their platform.

Most I would say are what we would call “poor” or “middle class” by US standards. And yet the general attitude of most people is that life is good. They don’t need/epect/want More,Bigger,Faster.
Posted by: melmel at September 16, 2005 07:33 PM

In fact melmel, in a recent UN survey, Ireland came off the second wealthiest country in the world, measured by GDP. It also has the highest immigration in Western Europe from Eastern European EU accession countries. It has a minimum wage of just short of €8 (Euros), which is about $10 per hour. And that does not buy great comfort here. I fear to think how Americans on minimum wage can get by on, what is it, $5 per hour? As for the Irish being mostly poor? Fraid not. Unless you mean other that material poverty. Ireland has gone from one of the poorest countries in Europe, to amongst the richest in less than thiry years. We were once a largely simple agrarian people with an agricultural economy, with a simple Christian faith. Now we are rich, we are wandering looking for a meaning above fumbling in the greasy till, adding the halfpence to the pence. In the words of a famous man, whose name escapes me at the moment, when people stop believing in God, they don’t start to believe in nothing, they actually believe in anything. There is a major debate going on in Ireland at the moment regarding the economy. Everyone is so much better off now, but the cost is in quality of life. Young families having to buy homes far from where they work, and commute, leaving their children to expensive childcare facilities. When they get home, they have little time together by the time they have prepped their evening meal and taken care of their children before having to turn in for another early start in the morning. Everything is done to worship at the altar of the economy, and people become simply fuel to fire the boiler. The debate is about why should we drive wealth creation if quality of life is diminished? Well, for Ireland it is welcome to the rat race and the globalised economy.

Taylor, your post totally cracked me up — thanks!

Anything for you sweetie! =D

A chimpanzee can grow up and become president….. TWICE!

Posted by: Taylor at September 16, 2005 07:56 PM

So is wasn’t just me having delusions when I thought I saw a simian look about the Pres!!!

So is wasn?t just me having delusions when I thought I saw a simian look about the Pres!!!

Definitely not just you…..

www.bushorchimp.com

Republicans are for family values, togetherness, and parental responsibiilty, right?

So why are they for policies that result in low wages necessitating both parents working? How is a child going to break out of poverty or avoid crime when he doesn’t see his single mother most of the day or night because she is working two jobs or exhausted?

Parental involvement is the most important component in education, and I would imagine, extremely important in escaping poverty, avoiding drugs, etc. However, the need to work extremely long hours to get by eliminates this possibility. You can have living wages and parental involvement, or neither.

I also think that living wages need to include access to health care. Just see the “living” in living wages.

Paul,

“Everyone is so much better off now, but the cost is in quality of life. Young families having to buy homes far from where they work, and commute, leaving their children to expensive childcare facilities. When they get home, they have little time together by the time they have prepped their evening meal and taken care of their children before having to turn in for another early start in the morning. Everything is done to worship at the altar of the economy, and people become simply fuel to fire the boiler. The debate is about why should we drive wealth creation if quality of life is diminished?”

Gee, Ireland is starting to sound like the America we all know and love?

I hope you’re not holding your breath.

Republicans are for family values, togetherness, and parental responsibiilty, right?

So long as it’s an all fetus family. Once no longer a fetus, it’s evil and must be sent to death row where it belongs.

Gee, Ireland is starting to sound like the America we all know and love?

Funny, Ireland is one of the happiest nations, according to the “subjective well-being” survey mentioned above and also one of the wealthiest per capita, according the UN Human Development Report. Oddly enough, it’s also has one of the highest levels of poverty, second among 17 OECD to - you guessed it - the good ole U.S.A. It sounds like we have a lot the same problems, making Ireland an interesting nation to watch in coming years. If they’re able to make a serious dent in their poverty rate, maybe we can as well.

True, the Celtic Tiger is strong but what is unique about IRL is they, for the most part, have not lost touch with what is important in life. Outside of Dublin one will find an IRL that is still rooted in humaness (is that a word?). Dublin is a different sotry and is a big city like any other with all the problems that go with. IRL is facing immigrant problems because of their choice to join the EU. I think the weather will keep most people away though. My experience there may have been different than the UN. I think the lifestyle that Paul is speaking of if of citizens of Dublin or maybe Belfast. The friends I made do work hard for their money but my point was they have not got caught up in the rat race and continue the lifestyle of their parents and grandparnets by enjoying life even if they don’t dirve the best car or live in the biggest house.

Oh and who gewts to decide what poverty is? Does that mean only one car per household? No computer or video games? No Nike tennis shoes? The only time I saw anything that looked close to an underclass was when I ran into a band of “travellers” otherwise known as gypsies. They had homes but CHOSE to travel around IRL in trailers selling wares and doing God knows what else. Like I said in my first post, most people live a life of lower or middle class by US standards but seem to get by fine and really think americans want too much material things.

Adrienne, I don’t belong or support any third Party in particular. I supported Nader for his clear sightedness on the problems America faces, and some of his proposed solutions. But, I don’t see any third party standing in the wings that I could support at this time. That is why I have to remain an independent voter at this time.

I am not clear on where you got the idea that I had a third party to propose as the answer. I don’t. Philosophically, I am closest to the Green Party, but find some excellent platform issues in the Libertarian Party as well. But neither of these has a concrete plan to change America without destroying her in the process. If either the Libertarian or Green Party actually ascended to federal government control, America’s 2nd Revolutionary War would commence. This is because neither of these parties has any sense of how to bring America slowly and consensually toward their philosophy.

An amalgam of third parties however, would pose a far lesser threat to too rapid and radical change in our economics and social policies, while retaining the potential of unseating either of the 2 major parties. But I see no leadership in any of the third parties committed to putting their differences aside to work unitedly toward taking down the Dem’s and Rep.’s.

I hope that day will come and will work for it. But it is a very, very long shot requiring a quarter million or more of like minded folks pushing from the inside of these third parties to make it happen.

David, thanks for your reply. I had assumed you were Reform Party because I remembered you advocacy of Nader in the last presidential election.

“If either the Libertarian or Green Party actually ascended to federal government control, America’s 2nd Revolutionary War would commence. This is because neither of these parties has any sense of how to bring America slowly and consensually toward their philosophy.”

I’m afraid I can’t agree. When you look at all the scientific data that is coming out on global warming and it’s potentially disasterous affects on our economy, I get the feeling that the time for a slow and consensual approach to protecting the environment is now beginning to vanish.
It would have been (still would be) great if the private sector had started to voluntarily yet seriously focus on green technology solutions regarding energy before now — but I’ve always suspected that the impetus would ultimately have to come from our government when things finally reach a crisis stage. And when it does, no doubt the solutions and proposals that the The Green Party have been working on all these years will appear to be wise and perceptive — rather than the ravings of “radical extremists” to the majority of the people in this country (as they are currently viewed).

“An amalgam of third parties however, would pose a far lesser threat to too rapid and radical change in our economics and social policies, while retaining the potential of unseating either of the 2 major parties. But I see no leadership in any of the third parties committed to putting their differences aside to work unitedly toward taking down the Dem’s and Rep.’s.”

I think it would be very interesting indeed if the Reform Party and the Greens could work together and find a way to join forces. Both have got some really great ideas, and it would be very nice to see them combined.

“I hope that day will come and will work for it. But it is a very, very long shot requiring a quarter million or more of like minded folks pushing from the inside of these third parties to make it happen.”

I agree — and think this will probably take many years, and occur from the bottom up. Starting with a groundswell from local to state government, then finally moving upwards to the Congressional level and beyond.

You’ve got to wonder why liberals sometimes feel a strong dislike for conservatives. You know what would make me happy? That’s right, wiping my ass with the paper you used to right this.

“You�ve got to wonder why liberals sometimes feel a strong dislike for conservatives.”

Well, these days I’d say that’s got a lot to do with a big, hulking monster that goes by the name of Karl Rove…

“You know what would make me happy? That�s right, wiping my ass with the paper you used to right this.”

Posted by: god your crazy at September 20, 2005 07:39 PM

Well, that thought may make you happy, but tragically, I must inform you that there is no such thing as paper in the blogosphere. But if there was, you’d WRITE on paper, not “right” on it. And since I’ve gone this far, I might as well go ahead and tell you that your name should be: “god YOU’RE crazy”. See, that’s a conjunction. The word YOU plus the word ARE = YOU’RE.

Hey, did you see what just happened? When someone keeps their mind off of their anus for a few moments, one is very often able to learn something new!
Keep up the good work…