Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

To those who believe in the "American Dream"Follow

#77 Dec 21 2004 at 4:07 PM Rating: Default
32 posts
Quote:
I guess my grandparents and nearly every other person in the United States in the '30's were living without those basic necessities, right? All of those things were around, but only the rich could afford them, yet here you are making the assumption that their lives were somehow diminished by the lack of them. I suspect that my grandparents would heartily disagree with you.

Totem


Well, Totem, times change, wouldn't you agree? The simple fact is, so many daily activities that are necessary in having a life where one can salvage some dignity, these things are a basic necessity. First off, if someone is too poor to afford these basic necessities, in the United States, this day in age, chanced are they are not some independent living off their own land, hunting their own food. Chances are these people will be in an urban environment, without access to the necessary tools, skills and funds capable of living such a life.

If someone cannot afford these basic necessities this day in age (since now it is the majority and not just the rich that have access to them) it is a good indication of just how poor they really are.

Our society nowadays is geared towards assuming that everyone has access to these basic necessities to get through their daily routines.

Is it ok for poverty-ridden parents, or single parents, not to have access to these things for their children? What kind of a childhood is that kid going to have?

Let's take running water. Do you seriously think this should not be considered a basic necessity this day in age? Can't buy bottled water, certainly not enough money. Should the kids go out and try and find a lake or a pool or a river after work to find water to bathe in so that the kids at school don't make fun of them for smelling? I'm sure they'll still have a wonderful childhood if they just toughen up and take it! Afterall, they are survivors, not whiny little babies.

What about a single person? Given that there aren';t too many accessible wells around the city, he might have to go fetch his water from a tap in a fast food restaurant. Lets hope he has some big bottles to fill em up so he doesn't have to come back for at least a day! Or maybe he should go try and find a lake that hasn't yet been dumped full of toxins and then boil his water because those restaraunts are sick of him using their bathroom. But then he'd have to get some wood or something that will burn long enough to boil his water. But is it legal to cut down trees or brake off branches? Maybe he got a ticket by a cop from dumping his **** down a sewar out front of his house. Maybe his neighbours simply look at him with dissaproval for doing such things, not knowing what exactly he is going through.

What will he do during winter? I guess he could go down to the shelter that actually has heat since he doesn't have a fireplace in his one room apartment. If he has kids he could bring them there and stay for a few months. Afterall, they will SURVIVE. That's all that matters, isn't it?


The fact is your grandparents grew up in a time and place where they were taught and more able to grow up and survive in such circumstances. They probably grew up in a home with many family members who were able to help and provide what they could to survive. They probably had access to heating (fire and wood), water (a well), and an outhouse. Not only this, but it was acceptable for the majority. Nowadays, if you don't have electricity your probably also don't have access to some sort of fireplace or a readily available source of wood for that heating. It's a similar story with running water. How can you compare nowadays to the 1930s? It was a different time with different methods and readily availble tools and mechanisms to be able to have access to some of the basic necessities of a decent life.

#78 Dec 21 2004 at 4:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
That's nice. Given that we're talking about the cost of things like apartment rentals and the wages of fast food jobs and others are responding with "you don't need utilities!", when some of these places without sanitation or water are apartments next to Burger Kings, you'll have a point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#79 Dec 21 2004 at 4:09 PM Rating: Decent
Deloused wrote:
Well, Totem, times change, wouldn't you agree? The simple fact is, so many daily activities that are necessary in having a life where one can salvage some dignity, these things are a basic necessity. First off, if someone is too poor to afford these basic necessities, in the United States, this day in age, chanced are they are not some independent living off their own land, hunting their own food. Chances are these people will be in an urban environment, without access to the necessary tools, skills and funds capable of living such a life.


You mean they can't get a few dollars together strumming a guitar on a corner and take a bus to somewhere where they can?
#80 Dec 21 2004 at 4:34 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
No, the fact is that some of you believe that having certain items and services is an absolute neccesity. I disagree. While it would be a pleasent thought to believe that amenities like big dollar incomes, cars, running water, electricity, indoor plumbing, and telephones are things you cannot live without, billions of people around the world-- including many in the United States, that country of milk and honey --don't have these things. And guess what? They are putting food in their mouths and living their lives. Maybe not to a level that you believe you are entitled to live, but there it is, it can be done. Is it great? Nope. Is it something to aspire to? Nope. But neither is cancer, getting run over by a truck, or any number of bad things which can happen to you and reduce the quality of life of those they happen to.

The difference is in the United States you are not condemned to this like untouchables in India. You can make your way here by hard work, saving, using ingenuity and resourcefulness. It's not guaranteed, but at least you have a chance-- particularly since you have so many resources at your disposal here in America such as free education, free food from soup kitchens, libraries, clothing from distribution centers, etc etc etc. That's a whole lot more than nearly every other place in the world.

Totem
#81 Dec 21 2004 at 4:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#82 Dec 21 2004 at 4:45 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Yes, Totem, but what does that have to do with minimum wage rates?
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#83 Dec 21 2004 at 4:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Totem wants us all to believe that since his sainted grandmother lived like a beggar child in Calcutta, every person living in the city who isn't making a living wage should migrate to the country where they can dig a fresh water well like the people of Alaska. Then they can walk into the city on weekends to take advantage of the free soup and libraries.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Dec 21 2004 at 4:52 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Backatcha, Jophiel. Smiley: rolleyes All you have said (or left unsaid) is that you are prissy and can't live without your lattes and truffles. Maybe you should remove the pea from under your mattress and send it to a soup kitchen for the hungry and poor, princess.

Debalic, I have already said it-- a minimum wage which reflects an income that is truly livable across the board is unrealistic. It may be viable in certain locations like San Francisco, but in Tupelo, Mississippi the company would go broke providing such a wage.

Totem
#85 Dec 21 2004 at 4:54 PM Rating: Default
**
835 posts
Laviont wrote:

Quote:
What is the difference be between a guy who feeds hundreds of people per day, and one who moves the sick and dying to a better place 10-20 times per day? Not much really.


I think the difference is that one has taken the time and expended the effort to be educated.

Too many people want to sit back and have life served to them on a platter. Fortunately it is but it's a ****** life.

If you want something better what is stopping you from having it? You are.
#86 Dec 21 2004 at 4:57 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,160 posts
And Jophiel wants us all to believe that everybody lives like he does. Nevermind that if someone can't make a living where they live perhaps it's a good idea to move to where they can? Barring that, perhaps they can all move in with you since apparently you are flush with cash and tight with the utility companies.

Totem
#87 Dec 21 2004 at 5:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Totem wrote:
And Jophiel wants us all to believe that everybody lives like he does.
Not at all. Which is why I support helping those who don't live like I do instead of saying "Pfftt.. was good enough for my grandma to live without a working toilet!"

Nice try though.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#88 Dec 21 2004 at 5:06 PM Rating: Good
The government was made for the people by the people. If we don not like it, we have the power and ability to change it. Want better wages? Do something about it! Want better housing? Do something about it.

Everyone is born with ambition and drive. Few succeed, whereas others give up. You are only as good as you want to be.
#89 Dec 21 2004 at 5:06 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Totem wrote:
Debalic, I have already said it-- a minimum wage which reflects an income that is truly livable across the board is unrealistic. It may be viable in certain locations like San Francisco, but in Tupelo, Mississippi the company would go broke providing such a wage.

Federal minimum wage is an asinine concept. Hell, state-wide minimum wage is just as bad. Is a 16 year old working a local pharmacy in Bath, NY expected to make the same as a kid working at Rite-Aid in Manhattan?

Anyways, I still don't know what this has to do with dying children in India, except that they're taking all our middle-wage white collar jobs. Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#90 Dec 21 2004 at 5:06 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,160 posts
So, Jophiel, those areas of the country where outhouses are the norm and electrical lines aren't strung need your help? I personally met some Cajuns who would take offense at your patronizing tone.

Totem
#91 Dec 21 2004 at 5:07 PM Rating: Excellent
**
564 posts
Totem wrote:
There are entire areas of the country that do not indoor plumbing or running water, Jophiel. Significant portions of Louisianna, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, California, Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, Kentucky, Michigan, and Arizona are without these basic necessities that you think are so terribly needed.


What is your definition of significant? Most of the houses that don't have indoor plumbing or running water are actually a very small percentage of those states. What makes them noticable is that they are usually clumped together in the same geographic location.

Also the fact that there is information out there about these areas for you to find suggests that the situation is not considered acceptable, and attention has been brought to these severely poor regions in order to make things better. Maybe we haven't gotten running water or indoor plumbing to every home yet, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying.

You're right, indoor plumbing and running water are not required to survive (but then again, a house isn't required for survival either). But we're not worried about basic survival. There is a base standard of living that we should all have access to just on the basis of advancement in technology, culture and society. It's not a survival issue, but rather a quality of life issue. And if you feel that those who can't afford the basics that our advanced culture provides should just do without and go back to the quality of life that existed a hundred years ago, then I call you a sad example of a human being.

Out of curiosity, did your parents continue to live in a house with no plumbing or electricity, since you seem to paint such a rosy picture of that existence. Or did your grandparents, when given the chance to live in a house with these modern conveniences pass on the opportunity?

I suppose you also think that things such as antibiotics, immunizations, antiseptic and sterile medical proceedures should be available only for those who can afford it, as after all, we survived for thousands of years without them. Perhaps we should just take the poor and force them to adopt a scavenging, nomadic lifestyle? After all, humans survived that way before as well.
#92 Dec 21 2004 at 5:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Forget it, Dan. Totem's entire arguement rests on the fact that his grandmommy didn't have a toilet. He somehow wants to spin that into me being a snob but, as I showed above, that doesn't even make sense.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#93 Dec 21 2004 at 5:12 PM Rating: Good
Times have changed we have now adapted to some of the goals and dreams our ancestors had for us. Arguing over toilets and electricity will get you nowhere.


The real question is, Now that you see a problem, what are we as America going to do to fix it?

The rich are going to get richer and the poor, poorer!
#94 Dec 21 2004 at 5:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Why is that a problem? Just tell the poor to live in a yurt and hunt mammoths. Are you implying that it wasn't good enough for my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather?! How DARE you imply such a thing, you classist snob!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#95 Dec 21 2004 at 5:23 PM Rating: Good
**
564 posts
The sad thing is the same ideas and attitudes that several of the posters in this thread (totem, lefein, orionrokr) have put forth have been used in the past to create and justify horrendous systems such as Eugenics.

One would hope that we would learn from the mistakes in our past, but it's obvious that some continue to feel that a narrow, bigoted, elitist attitude is not only acceptable, but good and right.

We're fast approaching 2005, but some of these attitudes on display might as well have come from 1905.

Edited, Tue Dec 21 17:23:31 2004 by danreynolds
#96 Dec 21 2004 at 5:23 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
The point, Debalic, was that countless people live without the amenities that others here have stated are absolute necessities for them. And while it may not be a way you and I want to live, those people'sives are not diminished for their lack of those services, as weren't my sainted grandparents, as Jophiel puts it. Electricity for some is as a cell phone is for your teenaged daughter: nice to have, but certainly not something without which you'd cease to exist. After all, billions of people are doing just that-- living without these "necessities."

And therein lies the problem, right? Mr. Low Income wants to have a higher standard of living and wants us to legislate it for him. Some here would do just that, enact laws which force companies and employers to pay a certain wage that meets a nebulous threshold for a "livable" wage. Others of us say if you want a better standard of living, go out and earn it. Earn it by hard work, learning a skill, trade, or by taking a risk in business.

And somehow through this all, items which cost a certain amount, like housing would stay just where it is instead of rising to meet the new higher standard of living. So, there we go again, we have to raise the minimum wage to meet the new threshold for what is considered a livable wage.

Like it or not, our society needs people who will never get past the unskilled labor they are engaged in. There are only a limited amount of teenagers willing to flip hamburgers for a few bucks an hour and most parent aspire to have their kids move past that to a solid job earning a large salary. So who does that leave? It leaves the people unable or unwilling to better themselves, but who have to make some money to support themselves. We can't all be CEO and owner of Microsoft. Somebody has to mop the floors at night. And if nobody comes forward to mop those floors, then the boss will keep raising the wage until someone volunteers to do it.

Pretty simple.

Totem
#97 Dec 21 2004 at 5:26 PM Rating: Default
***
3,112 posts
I'm not going to kid myself, there's no hope. Every country was built on the backs of slaves. All superfluous wealth is accumilated unfairly. Every castle had serfs toiling the fields for their owners, so that the owners would have free time to ponder their next plunder. The only way to be in the position to change this is to have a number of Robin Hood type people, that would penetrate the gates of wealth, by becoming wealthy themselves through obsenely hard work and comprimising of morals, and from there performing a task that would ruin their own wealth, just to put a dent in "the system". How many people would change their minds once they feel the deceptive caresses of the almighty dollar? Damn near all of them so far. It is easier to fit a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven.
#98 Dec 21 2004 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
**
564 posts
Here's a radical idea for you Totem...

Instead of forcing workers into low wage jobs so that the system can continue, why not limit the profit margins for companies, take those savings and reinvest them in higher wages for the workers?

But then of course, we wouldn't be a "capitalist" society. Woe be to us if we don't continue a system that allows and even encourages people to profit at the expense of the masses....
#99 Dec 21 2004 at 5:38 PM Rating: Decent
I would not say a SIGNIFICANT portion of those states are without plumbing and electricity, mainly the mountain people and it is by thier own choice. Oh and the Amish.
#100 Dec 21 2004 at 5:38 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,160 posts
Jophiel is playing a shell game, where he distracts you with stories about my grandparents, while obsfucating the fact that nothing remains status quo. If wages go up, then costs of services go up. Services which include housing, food, utilities, etc etc. But he would have you believe that everybody can have their cake and eat it too, like he somehow does-- as if his life is the standard by which all others are measured.

Whether he likes it or not-- assuming he is a typical middle class drone in Chicago --his existence is built on the backs of countless nameless low income people who do everything from grow the food (a meager existance, if you have lived on a farm*) to the park worker who makes less than $10 an hour. He blithely assumes everyone can live as he can, well... because if he's living it, darn it, they should too! And if they aren't we'll just vote them in a new pay increase! And shame on those business owners who selfishly want to make a profit!

Totem

* incidentally, my wife's parents in Minnesota lived without indoor plumbing on their farm till the late '60's. Not quite the Dark Ages that Jophiel would have you believe)
#101 Dec 21 2004 at 5:41 PM Rating: Decent
*****
16,160 posts
/nods

Mlynn gets it. RACK her.

Totem
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 294 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (294)