Modern Poverty Includes A.C. and an Xbox

Pfft, I know a guy who lives on $1500 a year (and he doesn't consider himself poor).

reply to post by dolphinfan


You shud wake up and smell the coffee.

reply to post by SaturnFX

we are at an extent now of no retreat, no compromise, no surrender...and that is sad.

I think at this juncture, we have had so many compromises that it is important that we have the attitude of no retreat. For instance, I believe the debt ceiling cannot be raised, the tax loopholes must expire, and the budget cuts must be even deeper than proposed. These things should not be compromised upon.

The things you and I could work to an agreement on would not be compromises in my book. They would be common goals. We could keep the end in sight and stop focusing on the obstacles.

It's odd, because what most people consider compromise is really just toothless legislation for show, and it never helps anyone. A true compromise would be making the hard decisions with bipartisan approval. Doing the things nobody wants to do, but have become necessary. That would be productive compromise!

reply to post by dolphinfan


So who exactly is the "government"?

Last time I checked it was composed of millionaire businessmen in thrall to billionaires, not poor people.

Since Reagan every opportunity to concentrate wealth upwards has been exploited to the fullest.

I remember how much money everyone made when the USSR broke up and look at the behavior in washington, and can't help seeing the parallels. I can feel the financial predator's breath on my neck.

The US has been run as a corporatist-fascist-plutocracy more than anything else since the late '70's. The Sixties scared the piss out of the old money and they responded by screwing the educational system and systemic looting (S&L fraud, greenmail, outsourcing, the derivatives, etc..).

The best solution I see is to cap wealth at $1 billion. After that, retire and enjoy life. You don't need any more than that. Leave some for everyone else.

No one has a right to unlimited wealth. If you want to work, fine: do it pro bono. If you need a constant increase in your wealth to feel good, get therapy: you are mentally ill if a billion isn't enough.

Judging by behavior, most of the top few per cent of the economy are probably genetic sociopaths: it's about the only thing that explains how and why we are at where we're at. Limiting the wealth is about the only way I can think of to keep them even marginally in check and to prevent them from collapsing society into ruin because they can't see any reason not to.

reply to post by SmArTbEaTz


Really. There is no shame in combining resources. No one should have to do it all on their own. It is a myth of the "American Dream" that we have perpetuated to our own demise.

You and your daughter could hopefully rent out a room, or share the home of your mother, or find another single parent and child, and you could have help for those sick days, and help with the utilities, and help in cooking dinners and buying milk.

I'm not saying no one should ever live alone, I'm saying when times are hard, contract, shrink your liabilities and maximize your resources. Retreat to fight another day. Don't let pride get in the way of reason.

reply to post by apacheman

The best solution I see is to cap wealth at $1 billion. After that, retire and enjoy life. You don't need any more than that. Leave some for everyone else. No one has a right to unlimited wealth. If you want to work, fine: do it pro bono. If you need a constant increase in your wealth to feel good, get therapy: you are mentally ill if a billion isn't enough.

Well, you finally said something I agree with! I have no problem with people making money, even obscene money. But there does come a point where you really don't need any more of it. I think instead of bailouts and foreign aid we should require everyone to retire at age 55. When you do, you get two $1M checks from uncle sam. One must be put into an income bearing vehicle. the second is for you to spend how you wish. You cannot work for 5 years. This would be less money than what was spent on TARP! And there would be jobs for everyone!

reply to post by SevenBeans
I totally don't believe you. At all. Pictures, or it didn't happen.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Good point. I know a guy that comes into the local bar one in a while, and he is single. he rents out rooms in his house to make his mortgage payment.

reply to post by getreadyalready


But none of that is going to happen
The tax loopholes won't be closed, the social programs will not be meaningfully restructured, etc...none of it..each side won't let up their pet projects, be it the lefts pushing of government dependency, or the rights favoritism towards corporatism.

So, the debt ceiling must be raised, or the whole thing will come crashing down and we turn into greece.

Some suggest that crashing it would be great, because it will somehow lead to a new fair system put in place. heh...silly talk. like america is the only land on earth and everything globally will change should we fall. no, the only thing that happens is we become a junk economy nation and china takes over...making sure they stay on top.
Well, I guess in that event, I step off the ship and go...I am lucky enough to have choice here..I have perm residency overseas and can choose a multitude of places to set up shop and forget the old US, not that I want to abandon a sinking ship, but I will swim to shore should the ship fully sink.

I think the time for rational discussions is over...things need to change, but they won't..just being a realist..so the only real concern is that the minor things left to stave off the crash may not even go through out of game winning verses concern for a viable future..the debt ceiling must raise once more, and maybe now that a Rep is not in the office, a actual discussion about it not happening again and actual measures put in place can happen...otherwise, we are done...but to suggest in the next few days, we can restructure everything magically is just...hell, not even sure if idealism is a friviolous enough word for such starry eyed dreaming.

Originally posted by haarvik
reply to post by apacheman

 

The best solution I see is to cap wealth at $1 billion. After that, retire and enjoy life. You don't need any more than that. Leave some for everyone else. No one has a right to unlimited wealth. If you want to work, fine: do it pro bono. If you need a constant increase in your wealth to feel good, get therapy: you are mentally ill if a billion isn't enough.

Well, you finally said something I agree with! I have no problem with people making money, even obscene money. But there does come a point where you really don't need any more of it. I think instead of bailouts and foreign aid we should require everyone to retire at age 55. When you do, you get two $1M checks from uncle sam. One must be put into an income bearing vehicle. the second is for you to spend how you wish. You cannot work for 5 years. This would be less money than what was spent on TARP! And there would be jobs for everyone!

Wait... so you agree that it's ok to cap wealth and put in place a progressive tax code? You know that makes you a "bleeding heart" liberal like the rest of us, right?

Had to give you a jab. I'm glad you have a limit and agree there is a need for restraining rampant greed. Heck, if we actually did this effectively, both the poor AND the middle class would be better off.

Originally posted by simone50m

 

I totally don't believe you. At all. Pictures, or it didn't happen.

Really, why?

He grows 95% of his own food, cuts his own firewood, built his house from scrap etc. etc. etc. He was an electrical engineer and finally just said F-it and moved to the woods.

No car, no internet, no electricity, no phone, no running water... all he has in his house other than necessities (REAL necessities like food and some simple handtools) is a stack of books, never met a smarter guy in my life.

Heritage Foundation is NOT a reliable source on this subject. They have an agenda to create class warfare to get what they want. What they want is to protect the inflated assets of their lot (Wall Street moguls and Banksters), at the expense of the old,infirm and unemployed. These corporate leaches will not be satisfied till they have drained the last drop of blood from those who did all the work in this nation for so many years and now are faced with abject poverty and homelessness.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by simone50m

 

I totally don't believe you. At all. Pictures, or it didn't happen.

Really, why?

He grows 95% of his own food, cuts his own firewood, built his house from scrap etc. etc. etc. He was an electrical engineer and finally just said F-it and moved to the woods.

The problem with this example is that it takes enormous capital to get into that position. You don't think homeless people would move to the woods and settle if they knew they had land to do that on? You can't just go out on BLM land and start throwing up drywall and planting veggies. You'll go to jail for that.

reply to post by Cuervo


There has to be some sort of humor in it all! Personally, I think a national sales tax would suffice. 15% is a good number, mainly because it would encompass all of the Internet sales currently not paying sales tax. Imagine not having to pay 15% of your income to uncle sam, but rather keeping ti. That would make a huge difference in most peoples lives, especially the working poor.

reply to post by dolphinfan


It sure doesn't.

My grandmother is having huge issues right now with money being on a fixed income. She doesn't use the AC despite it often being 90+ outside. She never takes a drive anywhere and she eats one (1) sandwich a day just so she can scrape her way through the month. She doesn't have any frivolous expenditures except for cable. Something I personally feel she deserves as that's all she has for entertainment.

Originally posted by Cuervo
The problem with this example is that it takes enormous capital to get into that position. You don't think homeless people would move to the woods and settle if they knew they had land to do that on? You can't just go out on BLM land and start throwing up drywall and planting veggies. You'll go to jail for that.

Not at all, he got his ten acres for next to nothing (cut over paper company land in northern maine in the middle of nowhere).

And no I don't think they would... you have to be smart, sane and sober to live like him.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by Cuervo
The problem with this example is that it takes enormous capital to get into that position. You don't think homeless people would move to the woods and settle if they knew they had land to do that on? You can't just go out on BLM land and start throwing up drywall and planting veggies. You'll go to jail for that.

Not at all, he got his ten acres for next to nothing (cut over paper company land in northern maine in the middle of nowhere).

And no I don't think they would... you have to be smart, sane and sober to live like him.

edit on 19-7-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

So if it's soooo cheap to do, would you support the government donating BLM to homeless people and letting them live on that land, tax free?

"Smart sane and sober"... wow, judge much?

Originally posted by Cuervo
So if it's soooo cheap to do, would you support the government donating BLM to homeless people and letting them live on that land, tax free?

What is BLM land?

I wouldn't support the government giving people land (homeless or otherwise)... why should I?

Originally posted by Cuervo
"Smart sane and sober"... wow, judge much?

edit on 19-7-2011 by Cuervo because: (no reason given)[

Are you suggesting that the homeless tend to be smart, sane and sober? extra DIV