posted on October 28, 2002 04:07:34 PM new
His 'thought' process never ceases to make us laugh. Thought I'd share.
Ever wonder about those people who spend $2.00 apiece on those little bottles of Evian water?
Try spelling Evian backwards: NAIVE
Isn't making a smoking section in a restaurant like making a peeing section in a swimming pool?
OK... so if the Jacksonville Jaguars are known as the "Jags" and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers are known as the "Bucs", what does that make the Tennessee Titans?
If 4 out of 5 people SUFFER from diarrhea...does that mean that one enjoys it?
If people from Poland are called Poles, why aren't people from Holland called Holes?
Why do we say something is out of whack? What's a whack?
Do infants enjoy infancy as much as adults enjoy adultery?
If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?
If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?
When someone asks you, "A penny for your thoughts" and you put your two cents in . . . what happens to the other penny?
Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker?
Why do croutons come in airtight packages? Aren't they just stale bread to begin with?
When cheese gets its picture taken, what does it say?
Why is a person who plays the piano called a pianist but a person who drives a race car not called a racist?
Why are a wise man and a wise guy opposites?
Why do overlook and oversee mean opposite things?
Why isn't the number 11 pronounced onety one?
"I am" is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that "I do" is the longest sentence?
If lawyers are disbarred and clergymen defrocked, doesn't it follow that electricians can be delighted, musicians denoted, cowboys deranged, models deposed, tree surgeons debarked, and dry cleaners depressed?
If Fed Ex and UPS were to merge, would they call it Fed UP?
Do Lipton Tea employees take coffee breaks?
What hair color do they put on the driver's licenses of bald men?
I was thinking about how people seem to read the Bible a whole lot more as they get older; then it dawned on me . . . they're cramming for their final exam.
I thought about how mothers feed their babies with tiny little spoons and forks, so I wondered what do Chinese mothers use? Toothpicks?
Why do they put pictures of criminals up in the Post Office? What are we supposed to do, write to them? Why don't they just put their pictures on the postage stamps so the mailmen can look for them while they deliver the mail?
If it's true that we are here to help others, then what exactly are the others here for?
You never really learn to swear until you learn to drive.
No one ever says, "It's only a game" when their team is winning.
Ever wonder what the speed of lightning would be if it didn't zigzag?
Last night I played a blank tape at full blast. The mime next door went nuts.
posted on October 28, 2002 04:56:33 PM new
ROTFLMAO! Linda!
George Carlin sure can see life's little absurdities. AND he is funny without being gross or obscene! A true comedian!
Thank you for posting those gut-busters! It's the best laugh that I've had in a very, very long time.
I especially like the one,"Isn't making a smoking section in a restaurant like making a peeing section in a swimming pool?" My favorite local resturant recently added a smoking section/bar/casino in the back. Even through some new doors, it still made the food taste like licking dirty ashtrays! My comnplaints to the ownership weren't well received - they believed in their new venture. I can't say how there' doing nowadays, as no one I know goes there anymore. I wish I had that quote in my head back then to prove my point.
posted on October 29, 2002 07:52:48 AM new
Good one Stu -
[Mentioning smokers] I've always wondered how many of those who are so opposed to smokers/smoking are in favor of legalized pot/hash/etc. Seems to be a contradiction to me. Do those same people think the pot smokers wouldn't be smoking in public if it were legalized? Oh well...don't know why that came to mind. lol
posted on October 29, 2002 11:15:16 AM new
Linda, in December here in Canada, we'll find out whether pot will be decriminalized or become legal. One of the provisions, if it becomes legal, is that there will be designated bars or coffee houses you can go to (like in Amsterdam) if you must smoke 'in public', but it will not be allowed on the streets, at concerts, etc. Kind of like the liquor laws.
Also Linda, many pot users don't like smoking it, so they make cookies, brownies, etc., or they "smoke" through a vapourizer. Oddly, pot has been shown to help lung cancer patients, which you'd think would hurt them more. Also, with pot, a person might have 2 or 3 puffs compared to a cigarette smoker who might smoke 200 cigarette puffs a day, so there is a big difference in the second hand toxins.
Anyway, here's another George Carlin line I always liked...
[b]"I honestly deep down don't care if it ever works out for this country, or for any
country, or for this species. Once I discovered that I had that degree of emotional separation from the outcome, it really freed me to be quite detached artistically."[/b]
posted on October 29, 2002 11:28:31 AM new
Thanks KD - If it does pass, I can only imagine what problems that will present for the US/Canadian boarder issues. You'll have TONS of Americans coming up for a visit.
if you must smoke 'in public', but it will not be allowed on the streets, at concerts, etc. Kind of like the liquor laws. Well...it's been many a year since my husband and I have attended any concerts but way back then there was lots of drinking [legally] and pot smoking going on during the concerts. Don't have any idea how your 'police' would regulate that restriction...anywhere. Seems like it would take a tremendous amount of man/woman power to uphold those restrictions.
"I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death."
posted on October 29, 2002 12:38:29 PM new
Carlin on Conservatives...
Pro life conservatives are obsessed with the fetus from conception to 9 months. After that they don't want to KNOW about you. They don't want to HEAR from you.
No nothing
No neonatal care
No day care
No headstart
No school lunch
No food stamps
No welfare
No nothing
If you're pre-born you're fine!
If you're pre-school, your f...ed!
posted on October 29, 2002 12:58:41 PM new
How hateful people must be to want to deny any child a hot lunch via the taxpayer. That we should divert those funds instead to building more weapons of mass destruction, bombs and bullets is true Evil in their thinking. It really doesn't take much for people to see the fallicies in the conservative ways of thinking, especially since they are so anti-Jesus' teachings, but it does help us to know that others see the holes in their thinking as well, and George Carlin can make us laugh at them for it!
posted on October 29, 2002 01:11:28 PM newHow hateful people must be to want to deny any child a hot lunch via the taxpayer. Do you ever try looking at the other sides point of view? NOBODY wants children to go hungry. But there are other ways to see that doesn't happen not just by giving out freebies all the time to people who are constantly making decisions in the wrong ways/areas.
A starting point would be for no one to have more children when they can't feed the ones they already have. Do they think about that? Not usually.
Two would be to be married so there are two capable adults to support any children of the relationship.
Three is they could have chosen to get a better education, or even completed their high school education rather than dropping out because they know our government will take care of all their needs.
Four - children learn what they see. If it's okay for mom to survive on welfare, then they learn it's okay.
Five - poor people are given food stamps. How many make the best choices when spending the allotment they are given?
There are so many more....I could go on and on. People need to learn to become self dependant...not government dependant. They lose the will to better themselves the more they are given.
This is one of those areas of things changing that I mention before. Everybody wants something for nothing. Poor children being raised by stupid adults will only create more stupid, dependant, adults.
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 29, 2002 01:27 PM ]
posted on October 29, 2002 01:49:14 PM new
Once a child shows up at school hungry, it's too late to say, in regards to that child, that the answer is that the parents should have finished school, or that marriage should be encouraged, or that people should learn to be self-sufficient. People should learn to be self-sufficient, but you can't expect that a child should be self-sufficient. Encouraging the learning of self-sufficiency by letting a child go hungry (or anyone, really) is a hit or miss proposition - they'll either learn, or die. This could be viewed as harsh, but fair, for an adult. Too harsh, not fair, for a child.
That said, proactive suggestions are good ones. Promoting two parent families help, educated parents with more wage earning ability help, education on wise buying, not only for food stamp or other Aid recipients, but for every consumer who doesn't have an unlimited budget, helps. Promoting the value of self-sufficiency helps.
So, both approaches at once is the best way. Immediate help when and as needed, with an eye, at the same time, to fostering economic stability in the future, but not only one approach at the detriment to another.
posted on October 29, 2002 02:08:06 PM new
Donny - Well said. I've just always been BIG on self reliance. I'm certainly ALL for giving a 'helping hand' but it appears to me we've gone a long way away from 'helping' to making people dependant.
I speak from personal experience when I say I see how abused our system is. My granddaughters family [all 22 of them] have received assistance of one sort or the other for most of their lives. So do most of the people they're friends with. They all know how to 'work' the system. None work at jobs...they stay home and feed off our taxes. A couple collect AFDC from two states at the same time. Our granddaughter no more 'needs' her free breakfast and lunch [that is supplied to her] than our children did. Her mother just chooses to spend our sons child support payments [very generous] in other ways other than taking care of properly feeding her children.
posted on October 29, 2002 03:12:48 PM new
Well, to paraphrase George Bernard Shaw, we always want to give less money to the underserving poor than to the deserving poor. But is this fair? They eat just as much as the deserving poor.. and they drink quite a bit more
posted on October 29, 2002 04:32:42 PM new
Please excuse the length of this post:
Linda, your thoughts are just fine. Please follow the trail of beans in this post.
As I've pointed out AND PROVED on so many occasions here in the RT is that the solutions that Conservatives offer are simple solutions to very complex problems and because of that, they are ineffective and do not work.
For instance, if we could wave a magic wand wiping the slate clean of all human poor and the existing services to help them and only then install Conservative ways of making the system not require helping the poor out (in fact, there would be no poor) except for life's unfortunates who were in the wrong place at the wrong time kinda of thing, the whole thing would work out beautifully! Only then would those ideas work and be of any real value.
Since that waving of the magic wand is not possible, what we could always do is to try to slowly infiltrate the atmosphere of looser-ship and despair that pervades those in abject poverty. How would you go about it?
First, you'd have to take a very close look at the problems that put these people into these phenomena in the first place. You'd do that by gathering facts and trying to find similarities in order to understand what could be the root causes. After all, you can't treat every single different problem for each and every individual person by creating a whole program designed just for that one person's problems -- right? You need to use the limited resources to in the most efficient way to bring benefits to the most. Prudent -- right?
OK, here's what has been found in the past as factors. I'm sure that I'll skip a few by accident and others will input the information for me. In the meantime, look at this. We're looking at REALITY, not Wishful Thinking -- OK?
What is causing this inability to pay their own way is:
Main Causes of the prevailing Attitude of Despair
________________________________________
1) Lack of ability to pay their own way.
a) Mental illness or severe physical disability - usually both.
b) A lack of adequate education.
c) An uneven Playing Field for jobs.
d) Crime and Drug Use.
2) A Culture of Despair
__________________________________________
With Problem Number 1.a, we can and should treat the mentally ill and/or physically impaired with the idea of getting them back into the work force. The problem: they have a much greater need for ongoing medical and mental health coverage than other people do. Republicans are reluctant to fund this, although the Social Security Disabilities Act was reformed by President Clinton. Extending the Act to help out all of those who are in need of it has been thwarted.
1.b People do not complete their education for a variety of reasons. Even if you could get these people to complete High School, these days, unless you have at least a four-year college degree, all other degrees are worthless - including High School. You need to be able to take these poverty-stricken folks and send them onto graduate school.
1.c If the Playing Field for getting the best jobs is not level - and it isn't, then what chance do impoverished people who have worked and sacrificed so hard have to go onwards when the way is blocked for them by the Rich and Powerful? Example: Microsoft makes the playing field so uneven for competition that no one can get a chance to come up with their own competing ideas and work. We tried to make Microsoft level the playing field, but Conservatives are backing Bill Gates and things are right back to where they started from.
1.d The War on Drugs is bust! It is routinely used to make felons out of the poor, who afterwards cannot vote and be represented, who are barred from good paying jobs, all because they smoked some pot. You have to educate people to not start on drugs and you have to offer drug programs that try to get these people off of the drugs that they are on. Conservatives at ever turn object to these programs being paid for with tax dollars; although another 10 billion dollars to build new cruise missiles is OK.
It has been shown that IF you make jobs available, crime goes down. When jobs are lost, crime goes UP. Tell me exactly how the Conservatives have done any good for our economy since Eisenhower was President? They MAKE this problem happen, Linda - not fix it!
That's just scratching the very surface.
2. The Culture of Despair.
If you can't qualify for a job because you do not have the education and you have felony convictions for drug use and the playing field is all warped against you, you begin to despair. While you could forego having children until you are better prepared, you have human needs for sex and you go for it, since you can't take vacations in the Bahamas whenever you feel a bit downtrodden.
But couldn't they use contraceptives and condoms? According to the Conservatives, the answer to that is NO! Sex education is NOT allowed in schools! Contraception is NOT allowed at all for many Conservatives! Conservative tell people, "Just don't do it!" Works great for kids, but when you've got screaming hormones and willing sex partners who do not know better, then you get a lot of kids being born. In fact, it is CONSERVATIVES and Conservative "Values" that are at the root causes of the poor having kids when they shouldn't!
Instead, the Democratic Party has always been trying to get the poor out of where they are at and up into self-sufficiency. In order to do that, they try to help the sick, educate the ignorant, and level the playing field so that ALL can get the good paying jobs that they qualify for! In the meantime, since they can't wave a magic wand either, Linda, they offer social programs to help people in need RIGHT NOW so that they can get housed, clothed, educated and into the work force.
The Republicans and Conservatives have never understood this. Instead, they try everything that they can to stop public medicine, insert religion in place of science and reduce the academic education that would actually qualify students for a good living, they back those large corporations, the Rich, and the Powerful to keep the Playing Field uneven, and instead of treating people and giving them the help that they need, they pay three times more for warehousing people in prison than helping them out.
Should I go on?
Linda, there isn't anything that Conservative do that actually HELPS the situation! In fact, they do everything in their power to MAKE IT WORSE! They are short-sighted in their vision of How Things Should Be and come up with Band-Aid answers to complex problems that will never solve them!
Linda, if you think that I am wrong, then you can go and think it through and tell us all exactly HOW Conservatives will "fix" the poverty in this country and change the attitudes of those now on welfare! I've asked Conservatives this many times here in the RT and not one of them could provide any answers that withstood the slightest of scrutiny thinking through. Maybe you'll be the first? I hope so.
posted on October 29, 2002 05:07:49 PM new
Borillar - I don't see all conservative nor liberal issues as being right. I agree and disagree with some from both sides.
solutions that Conservatives offer are simple solutions to very complex problems and because of that, they are ineffective and do not work. Reminds me of the joke Bear posted along the lines of having to spend years and many $$ to come up answers that have simple solutions. I see areas where they have worked. Welfare reform has taken many of the able bodied people off the dole and put them to work. Every able bodied person should be working and I fully support them increasing that work day to 40 hours rather than the current 20.
First, you'd have to take a very close look at the problems that put these people into these phenomena in the first place. Mostly their own choices, no study needed there.
You'd do that by gathering facts and trying to find similarities in order to understand what could be the root causes. Survival is a great motivating factor ... always has been...but when one knows they can live off the system...why try? After all BIG BROTHER will always be there.
posted on October 29, 2002 06:02:26 PM new1) Lack of ability to pay their own way. Other than the disabled, everyone should pay their own way. There are millions of people who started with nothing and have provided a great life/life style for themselves and their families. In our schools - Take a look at the legal aleins...they're almost always at the top of their class...have been for at least two decades. Look at all the diversified business owners around you....a lot of foreigners. They were able to become successful.
b) A lack of adequate education. A personal choice. It's available if it's wanted bad enough. And there have been many successful people that have accomplished a lot without even a high school education.
c) An uneven Playing Field for jobs. That's pretty board, not sure what you're saying.
d) Crime and Drug Use. Again to do the crime or not, to use the drugs or not, to sell the drugs or not...all personal choices that have consequences that come with the choices.
2) A Culture of Despair. A lot of laziness.
__________________________________________
we can and should treat the mentally ill and/or physically impaired with the idea of getting them back into the work force. That is being done. My sister was one of the disabled who was retrained [at no cost] because of a disability. In San Jose, CA there were lots of mentally challenged people working at jobs that many uneducated people would/could also work at. Probably the same in a lot of big cities. Problem is many don't want to. Oh...they have every excuse in the book why they can't. But they could, if they wanted. Too proud to work at low paying jobs and try to work themselves into a better position.
You need to be able to take these poverty-stricken folks and send them onto graduate school. Don't agree there. Why should working folks who either did or didn't choose to pay that cost for themselves be forced to give it to someone because they're poor? Let them do it like many others before than have done it...FOR THEMSELVES.
what chance do impoverished people who have worked and sacrificed so hard have to go onwards when the way is blocked for them by the Rich and Powerful? Then you use the example of Microsoft? We're talking individuals here. They have the same chance as anyone else. Just depends on what choices they make...and how bad they want something.
The War on Drugs is bust! Agreed drugs are a very serious concern to us all. But we can't force people to quit using...again their choice...with the consequenses. My opinion it's easy money. Again they don't want to work hard to obtain the things they want, it's much easier to sell drugs. The value of hard work has been lost on this generation it appears.
all because they smoked some pot. No, usually because they sold some.
[i]You have to educate people to not start on drugs[i] we HAVE been...see how much good it's doing? Drugs are becoming more of a problem, not less.
and you have to offer drug programs that try to get these people off of the drugs that they are on. No one 'has to'. It's a choice of how we want our tax dollars spent. That's why we vote differently.
Conservatives at ever turn object to these programs being paid for with tax dollars; although another 10 billion dollars to build new cruise missiles is OK. Yep, I'm real big on being able to defend our country. Military spending has been cut way too much for my liking.
It has been shown that IF you make jobs available, crime goes down. Want to show me that report? hehehe Not having a job doesn't give one the right to do crime. No one is starving and so they need to steal bread. Most steal to by drugs or other things they want to have, but are unwilling to work for.
[i]you begin to despair....you have human needs for sex and you go for it[i]....no problem there. Just be sure that an unwanted pregnancy doesn't occur. Don't keep reproducing when you can't even take care of yourself.
According to the Conservatives, the answer to that is NO! Not true other than the very far right. I'm a conservative and I totally support sex education in the schools. contraception is NOT allowed at all for many "Just don't do it!" I don't believe there's anything wrong with teaching abstinence along with other choices.
In fact, it is CONSERVATIVES and Conservative "Values" that are at the root causes of the poor having kids when they shouldn't! Well...as usual I just see things differently than you do. I was born in the 40's and there was a stigma about sex outside of marriage. Now-a-days there isn't. I don't see that things have improved...but because it's more accepted now than it was...we have more unwanted pregnancies, abortions, etc. Looking back I think having more moral restrictions on sexual activity worked better than what we're facing now.
The Republicans and Conservatives have never understood this. Instead, they try everything that they can to stop public medicine. Again, not true IMO. Republicans just recently tried to pass a drug program for the elderly. The two parties couldn't agree. Doesn't mean the republicans aren't trying.
insert religion While not a church person I think religion on this board gets slammed way too much. Religious people of all demoninations do a lot of great work for both the poor and those in need. To discount everything they do is wrong, IMO.
Will we ever agree Borillar? I most certainly doubt it. But that's okay...it's one of the most wonderful benefits about living in our country.
posted on October 29, 2002 06:13:29 PM new
You didn't mention the children, Linda.
In the United States there are approximately 12 million children living in poverty. The worst area is DC followed by Mississippi, Louisiana, New Mexico, West Virginia, Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky and Texas. These children can't wait while we solve their parent's problems. Surely, even conservatives should agree that they should recieve help.
You can't deny help to children because the system may be abused by some people or because their parents make the wrong choices or because the parents are uneducated or because the parents don't have a job or because there is only one parent making insufficient income.
Suerly you must agree that ALL children deserve food, shelter, education and health care...immediately!!!
posted on October 29, 2002 06:35:15 PM new
Okay, I have to put this Carlin favorite in here. It relates to eBay and all the stuff we circulate around the country and world. It even makes me think that if we didn't buy so much superfluous sh!t, we'd have the money needed to solve the world's problems.
"Actually this is just a place for my stuff, ya know? That's all, a little place for my stuff. That's all I want, that's all you need in life, is a little place for your stuff, ya know? I can see it on your table, everybody's got a little place for their stuff. This is my stuff, that's your stuff, that'll be his stuff over there. That's all you need in life, a little place for your stuff. That's all your house is: a place to keep your stuff. If you didn't have so much stuff, you wouldn't need a house. You could just walk around all the time. A house is just a pile of stuff with a cover on it. You can see that when you're taking off in an airplane. You look down, you see everybody's got a little pile of stuff. All the little piles of stuff. And when you leave your house, you gotta lock it up. Wouldn't want somebody to come by and take some of your stuff. They always take the good stuff. They never bother with that crap you're saving. All they want is the shiny stuff. That's what your house is, a place to keep your stuff while you go out and get...more stuff! Sometimes you gotta move, gotta get a bigger house. Why? No room for your stuff anymore. Did you ever notice when you go to somebody else's house, you never quite feel a hundred percent at home? You know why? No room for your stuff. Somebody else's stuff is all over the goddamn place! And if you stay overnight, unexpectedly, they give you a little bedroom to sleep in. Bedroom they haven't used in about eleven years. Someone died in it, eleven years ago. And they haven't moved any of his stuff! Right next to the bed there's usually a dresser or a bureau of some kind, and there's NO ROOM for your stuff on it. Somebody else's #*!@ is on the dresser. Have you noticed that their stuff is #*!@ and your #*!@ is stuff? God! And you say, "Get that #*!@ offa there and let me put my stuff down!" Sometimes you leave your house to go on vacation. And you gotta take some of your stuff with you. Gotta take about two big suitcases full of stuff, when you go on vacation. You gotta take a smaller version of your house. It's the second version of your stuff. And you're gonna fly all the way to Honolulu. Gonna go across the continent, across half an ocean to Honolulu. You get down to the hotel room in Honolulu and you open up your suitcase and you put away all your stuff. "Here's a place here, put a little bit of stuff there, put some stuff here, put some stuff--you put your stuff there, I'll put some stuff--here's another place for stuff, look at this, I'll put some stuff here..." And even though you're far away from home, you start to get used to it, you start to feel okay, because after all, you do have some of your stuff with you. That's when your friend calls up from Maui, and says, "Hey, why don'tchya come over to Maui for the weekend and spend a couple of nights over here." Oh, no! Now what do I pack? Right, you've gotta pack an even SMALLER version of your stuff. The third version of your house. Just enough stuff to take to Maui for a coupla days. You get over to Maui--I mean you're really getting extended now, when you think about it. You got stuff ALL the way back on the mainland, you got stuff on another island, you got stuff on this island. I mean, supply lines are getting longer and harder to maintain. You get over to your friend's house on Maui and he gives you a little place to sleep, a little bed right next to his windowsill or something. You put some of your stuff up there. You put your stuff up there. You got your Visine, you got your nail clippers, and you put everything up. It takes about an hour and a half, but after a while you finally feel okay, say, "All right, I got my nail clippers, I must be okay." That's when your friend says, "Aaaaay, I think tonight we'll go over the other side of the island, visit a pal of mine and maybe stay over." Aww, no. NOW what do you pack? Right--you gotta pack an even SMALLER version of your stuff. The fourth version of your house. Only the stuff you know you're gonna need. Money, keys, comb, wallet, lighter, hanky, pen, smokes, rubber and change. Well, only the stuff you HOPE you're gonna need."
posted on October 29, 2002 07:01:06 PM new
saabsister -
That, I think, is my most favorite of all his routines. We heard him do that one, probably 20, maybe 30 years ago and I still find it funny. Probably because it's so true. Thanks.
posted on October 29, 2002 08:21:17 PM new
Linda, deciding where you agree or disagree with me is fine. However, you still haven't told us how Conservative answers and Conservative Values could be implemented and go far in fixing the causes of poverty.
Let me just add that while I agree that teaching abstinance during sex education is a good idea, many Conservatives feel that it should be the ONLY method taught to kids as a contraceptive answer. I disagree with that nonsense.
The rest of oour differences, I feel, is not becausee you put your head in the sand and refuse to educate yourself. No. It is because you are not educated enough on the issues, Linda, for you to see why I say what I said. I'll admit that for brevity's sake, I only lightly touched on each of those points and omitted many of them because of the length of discussion or proofs.
By the Culture of Despair, I mean that I too have been in amongst them and I know all too well many of the prevailing attitudes. Many are not people with buring desirtes to succeed, but are only being held back by the "System" and if only they had the hurdles cleared for them, look at how they'd go. No, I know better than that. The Culture of Despair is so dominant and ingrained and even idolized in poor culture that many of them can not get from point A to Point B when it comes to acheiving their dreams.
Take my case, for instance. I come from blue-collar working class families on both sides; coal miners, auto industry workers, steel workers, etc. I was rasied with the best of intentions, but always pointed towards "getting a good job" and how to be a good employee. When I saw that I had a talant for business and sales, it has taken me twenty-two years to get somewhere. And I'm just barely getting anywhere right now. That's because the REAL education of how to be in business can't be taught in a classroom. In my case, my family did not come from the merchant class and so, I have had to go to the School of Hard Knocks to learn what I needed to know to make a success of myself. If I had come from a family that was in business and I could have grown up leanring the ropes, I'd likely be a Bill Gates or Donald Trump by now.
My point there is that by coming from a culture of Working Class, it is difficult on so many levels to cross over to just another way of making your money. How difficult then, is it to get people to cross over from a Culture of Despair and into a culture of Self Sufficiency? This is where Conservatives, IMO, have very Big Mouths, but no substance. Thier ideals are fine, but not useable in getting people from Point A to Point B. Yes, I've heard that all we need to do is to bring them all to Christ and Our Lord would take care of them. I just don't see God as an Employer.
Well, if you can come up with how Conservatives can actually put into practice what they preach, please share it with all of us! Otherwise, it's just so much Hot Air and Criticism of those who ARE putting things into place!
posted on October 29, 2002 09:55:06 PM new
Oh, blah blah and blah. You know dern well, or should, that neither Conservative nor Liberal policies could ever solve the problem of "The Poor." They've been with us as long as history. They're either annoying us with their wretched suffering, or causing resentment for the care they require. The best any society can do is implement a system to balance the voices on both sides enough to cancel out as much as possible. After that, find your own personal balance between your conscience and your pocketbook, be glad you're not one of them, and hope you never will be.
posted on October 29, 2002 10:37:11 PM new
That's a terrible outlook on the poor, Donny. If there wasn't enough wealth in this country to go around, or enough resources to go around, I might slant a bit your way. But honestly, that way that you look at the poor is a culture of despair in itself.
We've all pretty much heard the old saw about how if all of the wealth and resources in this country were somehow magically distributed evenly to each and every American, within five years who was rich before would be rich again and those who were poor would be poor again.
But what does that really say, Donny? Does it say that some people are meant to be poor and there's no sense arguing otherwise - just thank God for blessing you for not being one of them? Or, does it indicate that maybe the KNOWLEDGE of how to keep one's money is not shared to all. Maybe it's the ATTITUDE that is not shared with those who come from poor families. Couldn't those play a vital part in determining who will be poor again and who will be rich again?
On top of that, the western world has been thinking about the poor for a long time. In fact, it inspired such advanced political systems such as the ones that we all enjoy here in America. That entrenched feudal societies tend to impoverish and promulgates a "keep them in their place" mentality is a stated historical fact. That by the efforts of those forward thinkers trying to redress the grievances that make such absolute poverty an institution among those affected, YOU do not have to live as one of them! That if they gave in to your attitude towards the problems of the poor, you'd be nothing more than an ignorant pig farmer at best! Lucky for you, SOME people saw it differently and thought that they could make a DIFFERENCE. Would you be so crass as to disagree with them?
No, Donny, there do NOT have to poor people in this world. Both Conservatives and Liberals alike agree on that. They just disagree on how best to go about getting results. The Conservative viewpoint is largely made up of giving the poor a swift kick in the ass, because it's all about laziness! The liberal viewpoint is there are underlying causes to poverty and conditions that keep people down in poverty and those conditions can be addressed and solved. If not entirely, at least for a great many now who are hopelessly stuck in poverty.
posted on October 29, 2002 11:26:11 PM new
"SOME people saw it differently and thought that they could make a DIFFERENCE. Would you be so crass as to disagree with them?"
Well, yes I would, I did already, didn't I?
"The Poor," as a group, have always been with us and still are. If they're not still with us, how could we be having this discussion?
The elimination of agricultural feudalism didn't eliminate "The Poor." Neither did industrialization. Again, if it had, this wouldn't be under discussion.
In a sense, to a large extent, we're still a feudal society, but not an agricultural one. You go to work in a building someone else owns. Someone else profits from your labor. You come home to either an apt. owned by someone else, or a house the bank has the title to. This is not the case for 100% of the people, neither was it in Feudalistic agricultural societies. But it is the basis of the system.
Note I say "The Poor," with quotation marks. As a group. No, I do not think that group will ever cease to be. It never has yet in the history of the world, and it's been a pretty long time. What I do think, and what I think both you and Linda fail to see, is that there is increased mobility both in and out of the group, individually and generationally (through economics of course, and not the basic birth/death cycle that changes the individual make up of a group).
posted on October 30, 2002 05:07:56 AM new
If automation makes physical wealth so cheap that consumer goods can be simply given away we will still have the "poor".
The people that are poor now can have all the cars and TV sets they want and eat well and they will still be lazy, lacking in any social graces, and unable to form relationships and display affection or raise their children well.
They can all have Armani suits and diamond rings and you still won't invite them to dinner or ask them over to play cards because they won't know how to act decently and how to make genuine friendships.
My wife and I have a number of friends that are multimillionaires and they are much more interested in having a stimulating conversation and bouncing new ideas off each other than how expensive the car was we drove over.
When it comes to material wealth it is nice to be able to fly off to Hawaii when you want but the truth is a man can only fit so much in his belly and after that it is all extra.
But if he is crude and stupid he is poor.
posted on October 30, 2002 05:26:48 AM new Once a child shows up at school hungry, it's too late to say, in regards to that child, that the answer is that the parents should have finished school, or that marriage should be encouraged, or that people should learn to be self-sufficient. People should learn to be self-sufficient, but you can't expect that a child should be self-sufficient. Encouraging the learning of self-sufficiency by letting a child go hungry (or anyone, really) is a hit or miss proposition - they'll either learn, or die. This could be viewed as harsh, but fair, for an adult. Too harsh, not fair, for a child.
That said, proactive suggestions are good ones. Promoting two parent families help, educated parents with more wage earning ability help, education on wise buying, not only for food stamp or other Aid recipients, but for every consumer who doesn't have an unlimited budget, helps. Promoting the value of self-sufficiency helps.
So, both approaches at once is the best way. Immediate help when and as needed, with an eye, at the same time, to fostering economic stability in the future, but not only one approach at the detriment to another.
posted on October 30, 2002 09:00:09 AM new
Look at history and you'll see that the conservative approach is wrong, and the liberal approach has the wrong goals.
Before there was any type of welfare there was still what seems to be a constant percentage of poor in all societies. So even with a total lack of welfare, the poor are still present. I don't believe there is or ever was a 100% effecient economy that has a place for everyone to be gainfully employed REGARDLESS of whether they are able bodied or disabled.
There will always be a level of poverty in all societies. We have a choice and we have the resources to aleviate the suffering of those in poverty, but we will never be able to end it.
Linda! 
Isn't he a hoot? Thanks for sharing that!!