Wow, the "left" is now a political party and 4Salt is the official spokesperson.

But how are his remarks racist?

Stlhd,

Where did I call for the US to step in. I would hope we could see past our own good fortune and help some others out. I agree we are pretty busy now. What about calling on France, Germany and other european countries to payback a little of what they got 60 years ago?

Harley,

There are better ways to help out the disadvantaged in this country rather than through taxes. Taxes funneled through govt. agencies eat to much off the top IMHO so the help is diluted. If I could see that 1005 of what i paid in taxes went to help tax away!


on 4 Salts comments,
"Let me introduce you to about 5 or 6 MILLION inner-city citizens and about the same amount of rural inhabitants across America who definitely "

It's racist because of this word "minority" being attached to this phrase "DID NOT CHOOSE poverty". Implying it is a conditon of repression and or inability. first on minoritites are being repressed. That statement in and of itself is racist implying that the majority being white is holding down the minority. You nor anyone else can prove this in any way shape or form. Primarily because the majority of that minority are immigrants who have chosen to be here because they recognise the opportunity in this great land. Second it would be racist to say that Blacks, Hispanic, Hatians ,Se Asian etc are incapable of making their own way in this country. Again far too many examples of successful members of these races to even begin to make that point.
3rd. take what is considered to be poverty level in this country and stack it up against any avg wage in the avg. country in the world and you have a wealthy person then combine that with all the freebeies they do not get in services like education and assistance programs. on top of all that offer to have any of these people that did not choose poverty the option of switching places with someone in bangladesh and let me know how many offers you get. I will not even go into the causes because you will just counter with the liberal hogwash that booze, drugs, preganacy,aids,etc are diseases and not lifestyle choices. I'll go tit for tat with any of that chit all day amigo!

4Salt, you're a racist. Stop using facts.

The US government, Affirmative Action and I had a little chuckle there.

WOW!!! My post was a couple of sentences long and 'ol King read THAT much into it!

My point (Funny how I ALWAYS have to clarify it for you King ) is that, through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, many people in this country (Whites included King) live far below the poverty line.

We weren't comparing American poverty to that of Bangladesh. I wasn't blaming the poverty on the Bush administration or any other specific factor for that matter.

I WAS MERELY REBUTTING YOUR BLANKET STATEMENT THAT POVERTY IN THIS COUNTRY, "WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS" AS YOU PUT IT, IS A LIFESTYLE CHOICE!

Comprehension my friend. You know... that thing they taught you in grade school...

GP2,

Yes, Powell is on my former “good guy” list. Unlike Bush and Cheny - who never appeared to be reliable sources of information from well before the 2000 election - Powell had integrity to spare. I had absolutely never read nor heard of a single negative attribute about the man. So when he made his presentation to the UN regarding the presence of WMD in Iraq and the imminent threat they represented, I considered that information more believable than anything provided by any other administration representative. It turns out he sold a position that turned out wasn’t supported by the information available to him. Bright people like Powell don’t make those kinds of errors. He never would have risen to his previous positions if he had. Powell spent his integrity in my book, and that’s why I deleted him from my good guy list. His action at the UN was more in keeping with being an administration political hack, unfortunately. I really, really, respected him a lot, quite independent of his association with Bush, and going back to Gulf War I, even though his positions on issues didn’t always reflect my own. And I didn’t call him an idiot or a bad man. Why do you insist on reading in your own meanings that are not present in my statements? (Are your own meanings more interesting to you?) Does my logic seem shallow to you still?

Regarding what’s the boss supposed to do? Admitting making a mistake would be an appropriate first step toward developing integrity. But Bush just doesn’t come across as an integrity kind of guy. It doesn’t seem to be one of his interests. Too bad, because personal integrity is so presidential.

Your example speech for our fearless leader would at least be his first that contained more elements of truth than of lies. I’d give him a B+ if he said it.

Aunty,

You go, girl! That speech is a winner. As good a guy as Al likely is (at least until he became a presidential candidate 4 years ago), he wouldn’t fit the ticket. Now, replace Cheney with McCain (ooh, there’s that personal integrity element so lacking in this administration) - not that John would go for it - and you’d have some formidable publicly appealing political horsepower.

TK,

Freedom does not bring responsibility. People are either given or earn freedom. It is theirs to do with as they please. Now leadership, that incurs responsibility. And responsible leaders lead by example. Hmmm, former AWOL, cocaine user, alcoholic, become business icon using his daddy’s connections, become the President who squanders US goodwill, alienates allies, enriches only the rich - usually at the direct expense of the unrich, and degrading the environment that supports my life and that of all Americans. No wonder I sense a leadership and responsibility void.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

4salt,

"NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN" care to list these no falut poverty victims reasons for thier station in life? I would bet the majority of the reasons can all be taken back to lifestyle choices.

TK, so in your view there should be no poverty in this country since they all have the opportunity to help themselves?
There are only X amount of US dollars. Whom do you advocate loses money so that the poor are no longer poor?

Stlhd,

I did not say there should be no poverty I said in the majority of cases it was a choice. Quitting school, teen pregnacy, substance abuse ,immegration etc are all choices. My point is that we have all the tools at our disposal for free or little effort in this country. things like education, Scholarships , Job training,a multitude of state and local and federal programs to help people out.
I have first hand knowledge as a kid of a single mom who quit school in the 7th grade and had 3 kids before her 18th birthday and divorced and alone at 19. I grew up as 4salt mentioned. There is a way out and its up to the individual 100% the resources are there. Now this of course excludes people with handicaps , mental illness etc.

But in this society there will always be poor if there are rich. As long as there are those with more there has to be those with less.

Stlhd,

Correct but it says nothing about cause or relativity. The poor in this nation would be rich in other nations. The reasons some are poor in this nation would cause little empathy in most of the world.

No the poor would not be rich in other nations. If they took their salary and then were able to live and make the same amount of money in a lower standard country then yes but that isn't the case. Move to another country and get a job at that countries wages and you'd still be low skilled and poor.

Stlhd,

No. Take the poverty level vs the avg income of most nations and you will see that the poor in the US are closer to the avg wage than almost any other nation. This does not include subsidies and program asistance which is non existant in the 3rd world governments. Then there are the extremes For example in East king county if you make less than $90k combined you qualify for "low income housing" because of the median price of a home. In the bay area you could get a section 8 voucher for $5000 a month in rent due to housing laws requiring Multifamily developments to reflect and meet the demographic of the comunity in which they are built. Show me programs like those in Bangladesh. So poor is relative in this country and not so in others.

AN AMERICAN DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous.

So I take that to mean that if only we were more of a socialist of communist country we would be able to level the playing field and no one would have more than anyone else...We'd all be the same....? Boy that sounds really inviting for us hard working money makers.....I guess if you have no ambition and want "the state" to take care of you that probably sounds like heaven to you. Sounds like prison to me.

GP...take the words I type at face value without adding your bent. There is one pool of money so there will always be the haves and the have nots. Pretty self explanatory.

TK....You cannot compare any average wage in the US to that of a third world country. Sure take $24,000 a year and live like a king in some countries but then you aren't making $24K a year there either. You'd have to already have it in the bank. And US welfare/subsidy programs don't follow you out of the country. The poor would still be poor else where. Sure some can and do climb out of their lot in life but, for the reasons I explained above, the void is quickly filled by another. It's just the facts of a capitalist society. There will always be the lower class in the US just as there wil always be an upper class. Just like with investing there must be losers in order for there to be winners.

Having lived in a society that engineered themselves to be just as Grandpa has said, I have (I think) a unique perspective on this question. GP, you are right in that there is no great motivation to be creative, hardworking, or strive to something better. However, there was no one living in the streets, no hunger, great educational opportunities for everyone. It just goes to show - there is no perfection here on Earth - we get to wait for perfection. And anytime we deal in absolutes, it's more likely (IMHO) that we are absolutely wrong than absolutely right.

absolutely

Stlhd,

Stay with me, I said same % of avg wage so if its $24k in the US it may be $24 in Bangledesh. the point being the impoverished in the US are the most well off impoverished in the world. In most 3rd and 4th world countries you are born into poverty and there is no way out.

Stlhead,

Probably a minor point overall, but I think you're incorrect that there must be losers in order for there to be winners in investing. My understanding is that there are two ways of making money in markets. One, as you allude to, is the transfer of money from the losers to the winners. The second is the creation of new wealth by combining capital and labor to synergistically create products and or services that are worth more than the mere sum of the capital and labor. I think win-win outcomes are also a market possibility.

It's those SEC scams like Ivan Bosky and Michael Milken, and now probably Enron and others - that were all about transfer of money - that give a negative connotation to earning money through investing.

I agree with you that there will always be rich and poor in societies, even collectivist societies. And being rich isn't all about hard work. Many of this planet's people work hard without ever achieving wealth. Much of what happens in life is the result of luck, or a lack of it.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.