what is your typical view on AMERICANS?
0
You ao don't have to be paying into social security to get some of it's benifits. Currently, you don't even have to be a citizen.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
I have to disagree. The poor get several benefits ranging from EBT (food stamps0, tax breaks to welfare. Along with dozens upon dozens of charities. Hell, we even have systems to get the homeless back on their feet and into society again. Now we might not just give them food a house and a car but, that is how our society works. Nothing is free, you earn your keep.If you have any ideas to improve how we treat the poor I would like to hear them (really, I want to hear them).
Pretty much exactly sums up how Americans think of the poor; as leeches that got where they are by their own fault and could have a house in the suburbs if they had the desire to stop doing crack. I'm not making claims that the government keeps poor people down but it really doesn't do much of anything to actually help them beyond mostly keeping them from dying in some cases.
This is somewhat relative though. If you look at the entire world America isn't doing too bad but if you look at a list of OECD countries America is at the bottom for homelessness rates. The American medical system is set up in such a way that basically anyone without medical insurance is relegated to superglue, duct tape, and cafeteria cutlery for their medical needs. I relatively recently read a book that provided lots of statistics (the focus was on Canada but many of them were in comparison to America) which I can quote specifically once I get home but right now I'll keep it at what I've said so far. But seriously, just googling "homelessness in industrialized countries" gets you several articles about how abysmal homelessness and poverty rates are in America.
In response to the last bit, I'm not here to try and fix the system. I was just pointing out that America treats poor people like shit. Actual research into it (of which neither of us has likely done enough to have an informed debate about) though leads to an undeniable conclusion that America ranks quite poorly in treatment of its poor.
0
blind_assassin wrote...
In response to the last bit, I'm not here to try and fix the system. I was just pointing out that America treats poor people like shit. Actual research into it (of which neither of us has likely done enough to have an informed debate about) though leads to an undeniable conclusion that America ranks quite poorly in treatment of its poor.Your dodging the question. If America treats it's poor like shit then suggest a way to improve it. Otherwise we aren't doing that bad. What defines "the poor" to you. Those who make under 100k? under 75? under 50? under 30? What should we do? Provide them with the highest quality medical treatment, give them a two bedroom, one bath house? a 25k car? A big screen tv? We already provide them with food (EBT) They won't be buying steak with it but, you don't want people to remain poor. You want them to desire to climb up the ladder and giving them more handouts won't encourage them to do more to help themselves. We give them tax breaks and if they are completely poor then they don't even taxed (except on sales). As for schooling they have grants and scholarships that cater specifically to low income families.
So how do we "improve" our treatment of the poor? I want to hear your ideas. Show your ideas to me and I'll agree or disagree. As of right now I don't see our "terrible treatment" of the poor right now
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
blind_assassin wrote...
In response to the last bit, I'm not here to try and fix the system. I was just pointing out that America treats poor people like shit. Actual research into it (of which neither of us has likely done enough to have an informed debate about) though leads to an undeniable conclusion that America ranks quite poorly in treatment of its poor.Your dodging the question. If America treats it's poor like shit then suggest a way to improve it. Otherwise we aren't doing that bad. What defines "the poor" to you. Those who make under 100k? under 75? under 50? under 30? What should we do? Provide them with the highest quality medical treatment, give them a two bedroom, one bath house? a 25k car? A big screen tv? We already provide them with food (EBT) They won't be buying steak with it but, you don't want people to remain poor. You want them to desire to climb up the ladder and giving them more handouts won't encourage them to do more to help themselves. We give them tax breaks and if they are completely poor then they don't even taxed (except on sales). As for schooling they have grants and scholarships that cater specifically to low income families.
So how do we "improve" our treatment of the poor? I want to hear your ideas. Show your ideas to me and I'll agree or disagree. As of right now I don't see our "terrible treatment" of the poor right now
I don't have to qualify an objective observation with suggestion as to how to fix the deficiency. I haven't actually provided anything concrete in terms of statistics (which I will do within the next 24 hours so I'm not dodging, just stalling temporarily out of necessity) but once I do as such my point in entirely proven. I don't care if you refuse to agree with me on the basis that I'm not trying to fix society since that was never anything I said I would be doing. I simply made the claim that America treats poor people poorly. Most places do, but America is just an exceptional case of it.
0
blind_assassin wrote...
I don't have to qualify an objective observation with suggestion as to how to fix the deficiency. I haven't actually provided anything concrete in terms of statistics (which I will do within the next 24 hours so I'm not dodging, just stalling temporarily out of necessity) but once I do as such my point in entirely proven. I don't care if you refuse to agree with me on the basis that I'm not trying to fix society since that was never anything I said I would be doing. I simply made the claim that America treats poor people poorly. Most places do, but America is just an exceptional case of it.Let me explain something. The reason I dogged you was because I want to know. I've never taken someones word on anything so when they claim something I want proof. I'm interested so I want the How and why behind it.
How are we treating the poor so badly?
Why are conditions like this? /Why is it happening
How can we fix the problem
Why should be fix the problem (self explanatory)
Not trying to be a dick. Just chock it up to natural curiosity.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
blind_assassin wrote...
I don't have to qualify an objective observation with suggestion as to how to fix the deficiency. I haven't actually provided anything concrete in terms of statistics (which I will do within the next 24 hours so I'm not dodging, just stalling temporarily out of necessity) but once I do as such my point in entirely proven. I don't care if you refuse to agree with me on the basis that I'm not trying to fix society since that was never anything I said I would be doing. I simply made the claim that America treats poor people poorly. Most places do, but America is just an exceptional case of it.Let me explain something. The reason I dogged you was because I want to know. I've never taken someones word on anything so when they claim something I want proof. I'm interested so I want the How and why behind it.
How are we treating the poor so badly?
Why are conditions like this? /Why is it happening
How can we fix the problem
Why should be fix the problem (self explanatory)
Not trying to be a dick. Just chock it up to natural curiosity.
That's fine. If you believed me without any proof that would be bad. I expect the same thing. You were just making it seem like you not only believed that America has no poverty issues but that in the event that it did, I had to be able to fix it. I'm not making any attempt to do so because aside from generalisations I don't know idea how. Canada has very serious poverty issues (primarily within Natives) that I'd like to be able to fix before I could purport to fix America's problems. You can get some info through google searching but I'll hold up my assertion as well.
0
In Hawai'i, 'white folk' are treated like nerds and called 'Ha'ole,' which means 'not-breathing' 'ghost' 'pale' or, what the modern use of it, 'foreigner.'
I know this because I live here. I came to the US when I was about 4-5 years old. My first impression on the first ever American I saw was 'Dekaijiri,' which means 'fatass.' Lol. No offence to Americans.
After a few years, I went to a school in the mainland. Seeing that everyone there was white, I was treated as this foreign kid and lived with stereotypes until I became 8 and went back here to Hawaii.
Last year, I went to visit Japan and went to Harajuku for cosplay and shopping, and when I was there, their were a lot of American tourists taking pics ofus and saw a lot of other American otaku taking pics of the girls.
That's all my experiences with Americans. . .
I know this because I live here. I came to the US when I was about 4-5 years old. My first impression on the first ever American I saw was 'Dekaijiri,' which means 'fatass.' Lol. No offence to Americans.
After a few years, I went to a school in the mainland. Seeing that everyone there was white, I was treated as this foreign kid and lived with stereotypes until I became 8 and went back here to Hawaii.
Last year, I went to visit Japan and went to Harajuku for cosplay and shopping, and when I was there, their were a lot of American tourists taking pics ofus and saw a lot of other American otaku taking pics of the girls.
That's all my experiences with Americans. . .
0
iRadius wrote...
In Hawai'i, 'white folk' are treated like nerds and called 'Ha'ole,' which means 'not-breathing' 'ghost' 'pale' or, what the modern use of it, 'foreigner.'I know this because I live here. I came to the US when I was about 4-5 years old. My first impression on the first ever American I saw was 'Dekaijiri,' which means 'fatass.' Lol. No offence to Americans.
After a few years, I went to a school in the mainland. Seeing that everyone there was white, I was treated as this foreign kid and lived with stereotypes until I became 8 and went back here to Hawaii.
Last year, I went to visit Japan and went to Harajuku for cosplay and shopping, and when I was there, their were a lot of American tourists taking pics ofus and saw a lot of other American otaku taking pics of the girls.
That's all my experiences with Americans. . .
You know Hawaii is a state in the US, right? So Hawaiians are Americans.
0
Dante1214 wrote...
iRadius wrote...
In Hawai'i, 'white folk' are treated like nerds and called 'Ha'ole,' which means 'not-breathing' 'ghost' 'pale' or, what the modern use of it, 'foreigner.'I know this because I live here. I came to the US when I was about 4-5 years old. My first impression on the first ever American I saw was 'Dekaijiri,' which means 'fatass.' Lol. No offence to Americans.
After a few years, I went to a school in the mainland. Seeing that everyone there was white, I was treated as this foreign kid and lived with stereotypes until I became 8 and went back here to Hawaii.
Last year, I went to visit Japan and went to Harajuku for cosplay and shopping, and when I was there, their were a lot of American tourists taking pics ofus and saw a lot of other American otaku taking pics of the girls.
That's all my experiences with Americans. . .
You know Hawaii is a state in the US, right? So Hawaiians are Americans.
From what I've heard, native Hawaiians still treat white people like trash, even if we are all members of the same country.
0
ShaggyJebus wrote...
Dante1214 wrote...
iRadius wrote...
In Hawai'i, 'white folk' are treated like nerds and called 'Ha'ole,' which means 'not-breathing' 'ghost' 'pale' or, what the modern use of it, 'foreigner.'I know this because I live here. I came to the US when I was about 4-5 years old. My first impression on the first ever American I saw was 'Dekaijiri,' which means 'fatass.' Lol. No offence to Americans.
After a few years, I went to a school in the mainland. Seeing that everyone there was white, I was treated as this foreign kid and lived with stereotypes until I became 8 and went back here to Hawaii.
Last year, I went to visit Japan and went to Harajuku for cosplay and shopping, and when I was there, their were a lot of American tourists taking pics ofus and saw a lot of other American otaku taking pics of the girls.
That's all my experiences with Americans. . .
You know Hawaii is a state in the US, right? So Hawaiians are Americans.
From what I've heard, native Hawaiians still treat white people like trash, even if we are all members of the same country.
There is a group of Native Hawaiians that want to break away from the Union and become their own country again. My Niece lives out there with her husband and they claim that the natives will run you off the road if you aren't a "native".
0
I left the province twice and had an essay due since I last posted in this topic; sorry.
My source is "The Truth About Canada" by Mel Hurtig. His sources are various government bodies, the United Nations, and basically any credible national or international provider of statistics.
From 1990 to 200 17% of the population of America lived below the poverty line. That places it at 26th in the world.
America has a child poverty rate of 22.7% despite being the richest country in the world. The best countries have child poverty rates within the range of 2.4 and 4.2%. Most of those countries are Scandinavian, just for the record.
National poverty measurement records in America present lower rates but they're insanely flawed and unchanged from 1963. A family of 4 making $1650 a month are not considered poor even if they live in an area where rent is $1000 + a month.
In 2002, 26% of Americans said that they couldn't afford medicare.
Two out of every five low-income Americans at times go hungry.
As a comparison, the poorest 10% of Canadians have almost 60% more disposable income than the poorest 10% of Americans.
In the mid 90's 4.4 million Americans were on welfare. In 2006, the number was cut more than in half into 1.9 million.
That's most of what I can glean from the book without doing additional online searching. Keep in mind that the book is about Canada and the section on poverty is about 15 pages long plus a 3 page appendix. If you're still really not convinced in the least then I'm quite sure that UNICEF would be a rather easy way to find more detailed information since thats where several of the stats come from.
My source is "The Truth About Canada" by Mel Hurtig. His sources are various government bodies, the United Nations, and basically any credible national or international provider of statistics.
From 1990 to 200 17% of the population of America lived below the poverty line. That places it at 26th in the world.
America has a child poverty rate of 22.7% despite being the richest country in the world. The best countries have child poverty rates within the range of 2.4 and 4.2%. Most of those countries are Scandinavian, just for the record.
National poverty measurement records in America present lower rates but they're insanely flawed and unchanged from 1963. A family of 4 making $1650 a month are not considered poor even if they live in an area where rent is $1000 + a month.
In 2002, 26% of Americans said that they couldn't afford medicare.
Two out of every five low-income Americans at times go hungry.
As a comparison, the poorest 10% of Canadians have almost 60% more disposable income than the poorest 10% of Americans.
In the mid 90's 4.4 million Americans were on welfare. In 2006, the number was cut more than in half into 1.9 million.
That's most of what I can glean from the book without doing additional online searching. Keep in mind that the book is about Canada and the section on poverty is about 15 pages long plus a 3 page appendix. If you're still really not convinced in the least then I'm quite sure that UNICEF would be a rather easy way to find more detailed information since thats where several of the stats come from.
0
There are a lot of people in this country that make just enough money not to get help from the government, but don't make quite enough to live on.
And it sucks.
And it sucks.
0
blind_assassin wrote...
I left the province twice and had an essay due since I last posted in this topic; sorry.My source is "The Truth About Canada" by Mel Hurtig. His sources are various government bodies, the United Nations, and basically any credible national or international provider of statistics.
From 1990 to 200 17% of the population of America lived below the poverty line. That places it at 26th in the world.
America has a child poverty rate of 22.7% despite being the richest country in the world. The best countries have child poverty rates within the range of 2.4 and 4.2%. Most of those countries are Scandinavian, just for the record.
National poverty measurement records in America present lower rates but they're insanely flawed and unchanged from 1963. A family of 4 making $1650 a month are not considered poor even if they live in an area where rent is $1000 + a month.
In 2002, 26% of Americans said that they couldn't afford medicare.
Two out of every five low-income Americans at times go hungry.
As a comparison, the poorest 10% of Canadians have almost 60% more disposable income than the poorest 10% of Americans.
In the mid 90's 4.4 million Americans were on welfare. In 2006, the number was cut more than in half into 1.9 million.
That's most of what I can glean from the book without doing additional online searching. Keep in mind that the book is about Canada and the section on poverty is about 15 pages long plus a 3 page appendix. If you're still really not convinced in the least then I'm quite sure that UNICEF would be a rather easy way to find more detailed information since thats where several of the stats come from.
I think that the U.S. has a mythos, whether it happens often or rarely, of pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps. Some influential figures in the history of the nation, notably Andrew Carnegie in the economic sector, did manage to advance from poor lives due to exceptional talent and effort. There will always be people able to do this no matter how much or little help is given to the poor(such as nothing, as in Carnegie's day).
Yes, it is noble to help the poor, and our unique intelligence and ideals as humans presents us with a duty to try to prevent people from dying into the street. However, there is an inherent indefiniteness in the ideal of "equal opportunity" that many of us ascribe to. Does is mean that we should leave everyone as they are and let them go at it? From the perspective of government, everyone has then been treated equally. It is fate who is the tyrant. On the other extreme, should we make everyone as equal as possible in order to have a truly level(or as level as possible) playing field? But is it then fair to take from those who have more and give to those who have less? The government is then treating different people differently, and unequally. Most people would agree that the best option is somewhere in the middle, but I think it's an important concept to keep in mind when discussing such issues.
Additionally, both sides have costs, as well as benefits associated with them. A true welfare state eliminates poverty, which seems noble. However, it also restricts economic liberty, lowers incentives for success(since you see less results from your success), and is generally inefficient, since you are forcefully not letting the market optimize itself.
A lassez-faire capitalist state preserves economic liberty and is more optimal, from a wealth creation standpoint. However, the system inherently does not value human life, as well as leads to higher rates of destitution, which have societal costs, such as crime and insurgency.
Anyways, we see stuff in welfare states like the problems in France where laws make it impossible to fire incompetent employees. And when they try to change the laws, people riot in the streets. In the meantime, people who don't already have jobs can't get employed.
0
One stat that I left out was that 50% of Americans think poor people have it easy. I really hope that doesn't mean most Americans think being poor isn't hard and that they're doing too much to help them but either option is outrageous.
0
Anyways, what I said earlier about local Hawaiians treating people who are non-local like shit. I think it's pretty pathetic. I know what they feel about queen Liliu'okalani, but without America, Hawaii would be shit. I have many reasons why:
1] Hawaii's main economy is from tourism, which means no tourism, no money.
2] Hawaii has a high debt from the main land.
3] Without money, Hawaii won't have enough for travel. Hawaii has less good jobs.
4] Hawaii is full of stoners and has the #1 rank for teen-pregnancy. I mean 'sex as young as when you're 12.'
I also have reasons why locals would treat non-locals like trash:
1] Tourists have no respect for the land. I have seen many tourist who don't pick-up after themselves.
2] Some don't have respect for Hawaiian burial grounds and other places where no one without Hawaiian blood may touch.
3] More traffic when there are too many people on the island. For example: Kauai has only one main highway.
I have many more reasons and facts of Hawaii. I live here, so I guess I'm an expert, but believe me it is very sad how blind these stoners are. If you want more info about our 'paradise,' go watch Beyond Paradise.
Sorry if I went off-subject, but it's a thing I had to get off my chest. It's a typical view of Americans in Hawaii. Yes, it is true that a lot of locals want Hawaii to be a country, than a state. I do not think this can be true, because Hawaii lack pure-blooded Hawaiians due to the disease brought by Englishmen in the past. All you can find in Hawaii are mixed Asian-Polynesians and other races.
1] Hawaii's main economy is from tourism, which means no tourism, no money.
2] Hawaii has a high debt from the main land.
3] Without money, Hawaii won't have enough for travel. Hawaii has less good jobs.
4] Hawaii is full of stoners and has the #1 rank for teen-pregnancy. I mean 'sex as young as when you're 12.'
I also have reasons why locals would treat non-locals like trash:
1] Tourists have no respect for the land. I have seen many tourist who don't pick-up after themselves.
2] Some don't have respect for Hawaiian burial grounds and other places where no one without Hawaiian blood may touch.
3] More traffic when there are too many people on the island. For example: Kauai has only one main highway.
I have many more reasons and facts of Hawaii. I live here, so I guess I'm an expert, but believe me it is very sad how blind these stoners are. If you want more info about our 'paradise,' go watch Beyond Paradise.
Sorry if I went off-subject, but it's a thing I had to get off my chest. It's a typical view of Americans in Hawaii. Yes, it is true that a lot of locals want Hawaii to be a country, than a state. I do not think this can be true, because Hawaii lack pure-blooded Hawaiians due to the disease brought by Englishmen in the past. All you can find in Hawaii are mixed Asian-Polynesians and other races.
0
90% of Hawaiians look like they have Downs Syndrome. That gives some legitimacy to them treating people that don't look like them with scorn.
0
Dante1214 wrote...
There are a lot of people in this country that make just enough money not to get help from the government, but don't make quite enough to live on. And it sucks.
Also, there are a lot of people who get help from the government, but it's not enough or isn't the right kind of help.
For example, food stamps. A family can get food stamps and thus be one of those "suckling off the government" (in the eyes of some people), but food stamps cannot be used for anything but food. So, you can have plenty to eat, but no water or electricity.
Furthermore, it seems like some people think that there are a million governmental agencies right down the street that can provide assistance. There aren't. It's hard to get help from the government. There aren't a lot of avenues to go down, and every avenue available is filled with a ton of paperwork and other bullshit.
Most of the help people receive, they get from non-profit organizations that have no affiliation with the government.
0
blind_assassin wrote...
90% of Hawaiians look like they have Downs Syndrome. That gives some legitimacy to them treating people that don't look like them with scorn.What are you talking about?
In Hawaii, what makes you a non-ha'ole is if you're related to a Hawaiian, or just born there. Everyone in Hawaii looks different.In my school, like about 20% or less students are related which makes them the popular crew. They start fights everytime. Just by staring in their eyes, acting stupid, and just being a ha'ole.
0
WhiteLion wrote...
blind_assassin wrote...
I left the province twice and had an essay due since I last posted in this topic; sorry.My source is "The Truth About Canada" by Mel Hurtig. His sources are various government bodies, the United Nations, and basically any credible national or international provider of statistics.
From 1990 to 200 17% of the population of America lived below the poverty line. That places it at 26th in the world.
America has a child poverty rate of 22.7% despite being the richest country in the world. The best countries have child poverty rates within the range of 2.4 and 4.2%. Most of those countries are Scandinavian, just for the record.
National poverty measurement records in America present lower rates but they're insanely flawed and unchanged from 1963. A family of 4 making $1650 a month are not considered poor even if they live in an area where rent is $1000 + a month.
In 2002, 26% of Americans said that they couldn't afford medicare.
Two out of every five low-income Americans at times go hungry.
As a comparison, the poorest 10% of Canadians have almost 60% more disposable income than the poorest 10% of Americans.
In the mid 90's 4.4 million Americans were on welfare. In 2006, the number was cut more than in half into 1.9 million.
That's most of what I can glean from the book without doing additional online searching. Keep in mind that the book is about Canada and the section on poverty is about 15 pages long plus a 3 page appendix. If you're still really not convinced in the least then I'm quite sure that UNICEF would be a rather easy way to find more detailed information since thats where several of the stats come from.
I think that the U.S. has a mythos, whether it happens often or rarely, of pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps. Some influential figures in the history of the nation, notably Andrew Carnegie in the economic sector, did manage to advance from poor lives due to exceptional talent and effort. There will always be people able to do this no matter how much or little help is given to the poor(such as nothing, as in Carnegie's day).
Yes, it is noble to help the poor, and our unique intelligence and ideals as humans presents us with a duty to try to prevent people from dying into the street. However, there is an inherent indefiniteness in the ideal of "equal opportunity" that many of us ascribe to. Does is mean that we should leave everyone as they are and let them go at it? From the perspective of government, everyone has then been treated equally. It is fate who is the tyrant. On the other extreme, should we make everyone as equal as possible in order to have a truly level(or as level as possible) playing field? But is it then fair to take from those who have more and give to those who have less? The government is then treating different people differently, and unequally. Most people would agree that the best option is somewhere in the middle, but I think it's an important concept to keep in mind when discussing such issues.
Additionally, both sides have costs, as well as benefits associated with them. A true welfare state eliminates poverty, which seems noble. However, it also restricts economic liberty, lowers incentives for success(since you see less results from your success), and is generally inefficient, since you are forcefully not letting the market optimize itself.
A lassez-faire capitalist state preserves economic liberty and is more optimal, from a wealth creation standpoint. However, the system inherently does not value human life, as well as leads to higher rates of destitution, which have societal costs, such as crime and insurgency.
Anyways, we see stuff in welfare states like the problems in France where laws make it impossible to fire incompetent employees. And when they try to change the laws, people riot in the streets. In the meantime, people who don't already have jobs can't get employed.
Where the bloody hell are you when I'm trying to defend these points? I feel like a pilot without a wing man
This echoes my thoughts to the letter (not the picture..well, maybe.). I couldn't have put it better myself. The market will ultimately decide how things work and which products will be the standard. The government can try as much as it wants but, trying to "handle" the markets is like trying to do the same to a stubborn person.