Half of America in Poverty? Right-Wing Ass Clowns don’t want you to believe it’s true!

[tony human]

[Excerpt] Almost 50% of Americans are in poverty or at a "low income" level. “Low income" is defined as earnings between 100 and 199% of the poverty level, which places every American family making $50,000 or less at a near-poverty level. The Heritage Foundation argues that "The average poor person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines... In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave." Thus, if you have a fridge and microwave you cannot be poor or in poverty!

Total expenses for the family in the bottom (poor) half of America are:

24% taxes

27% housing

34% food, health care, child care, transportation, household needs

12% energy

 

That's 97% of income. The richest family among the poor 70,000,000 households is left with just $1,500 for a car, appliances, a TV, a cell phone, a loan repayment, an occasional night out. It comes to $30 a week, barely enough to take the family out for a pizza. Right-Wing Asswipes and their supporters bemoan the amounts of government aid being lavished on lower-income Americans.

 

The fact is that only 4,375,000 families (out of 70,000,000 in the bottom half) received Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in 2010, with a payout of about $400 per month per family. To begrudge poor people an extra $400 dollars per month is the height of despicable nastiness. Conservatives complain about the TVs and refrigerators owned by low-income people. But it's the height of ass-clown insensitivity to admonish people who are trying to survive in a perversely unequal society.

[Achilles Asheelz]

I would like it noted that if I were Uncle Sam this type of disparity propaganda would be precisely what I’d want.  Right or Left, who cares?  I think it was said best in the Federalist Papers that the “Sense of Faction” is the greatest threat to a democratic society.[i]  With that, inherently, is the sense of alignment, which is displayed by America’s Right-Left suggestion.

 

Generalization is a dangerous beast; to employ such a weapon against an entire perceived sect of society is ludicrous.  There are as many bribed and dirty ‘leftists’ as ‘right-wingers,’ because they’re people and they have personal interests.  The problem does not lie in their ideology, but in their practice.  The Practice, itself, has become warped due to many extenuating factors – not excluding the sense of faction used as leverage by international influences on domestic affairs.

 

It seems prudent, then, that if anyone involved wishes to exact “Change” in the political sphere or policy decisions of this country, without violence, to steer away from faction supportive ranting and emotional rhetoric.  It serves no end but to divide the people further, which is only supporting those whom you seem to oppose.  What needs to happen is “We the People,” need to garner a sense of self and stand together, regardless of polarity.  Only then will it be possible to approach the status-quo and make a meaningful difference.

 

If we do not conduct ourselves civilly and intelligently our emotions will be guided by more organized and more sophisticated constructs, which, if you observe, is exactly what has happened to the Arab Spring movement.  Jumping to conclusions and name-calling are self-contradictory, even if you list accurate sources to delineate your claims, because there is no guarantee that those “Right-Wing Asswipes,” are being properly represented by our strained and corrupt system of government.

 

 

---

[i] Federalist No. 10. p. 56 of the Dawson edition at Wikisource.

[tony human]

The federalist papers are a sham to convince people to bow down to "authority". See the Anti-Federalist Papers.

Ant gigantic organization which controls the money supply is an enemy (be it government or corporate banks).

The only solution is an economics of scale. As E.F. Schumacher put it "Small is Beautiful".

Any economy not controlled by a community of scale in almost complete participatory democracy is useless as those who are psychopaths (be they in a constitutional monarchy, socialist, communist or representative government) will rise up to gain power and control or the wealth.

And I just don't like rich, wealthy, parasitic right-wing asswipes! 

[Achilles Asheelz]

Indeed I've read both:

 

The Federalist Papers =>

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fedindex.htm

 

The Anti-Federalist Papers =>

http://www.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/constitutional/antifederalis...

 

 

The funny thing is both of them were heavily influenced by similar concepts, referred to heavily being:

 

“The Spirit of the Laws,” (1748) – Montesquieu

http://www.constitution.org/cm/sol-01.htm

 

 

Both offer solid arguments.  I think scaling down would be disastrous.  First we would require economic and “common defense” pacts or alliances.  Then we would have to get along enough to sustain those ends and be productive.  We would need law enforcement systems that supersede the construct to catch criminals who jump the ‘borders,’ etc.  There is no guarantee that the economy of scale concept will not be over-run by an alliance.  See: NATO

 

 

The argument:

Corruption will exist in either case, and it is our ability to balance against our natural tendency toward decadence that will secure peace and stability, not the scale on which it takes place.  The corrupt will merely seek to change the bio-dome that restricts them to afford them more privilege.  It is what happened to US, after all.

[Achilles Asheelz]

As an amendment I would like to note: you pointed out one of the primary issues that did not really exist until recently.  The government did NOT control the money supply, at least entirely, until the 1970’s.  They worked hard over the years to have that strength and it’s easy to track their progress on that endeavor. 

 

Although clearly slanted, this piece does have a good bit of relevant information:

http://mises.org/books/whathasgovernmentdone.pdf

 

You might also like:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FederalReserveSystem.html

 

 

As a key point I’d like to point out – regardless of scale – fiat money gives them all the control.  Even if just the economic construct were to be fragmented it would have to be in an atmosphere that prohibits a certain level of "unity" in order to avoid devastating consequences.

So now we're on the discussion of not only political change but altering the foundations of our current economic structure.  It needs done, unless slavery sounds nice to anyone, but I doubt it'll be done through the vehicles of emotion and structureless protests.

[tony human]

Well, I don't buy it. You sound like an authoritarian; a person who believes in the types of "government" mentioned above.

No, it is not true that regardless of scale fiat money gives them all the control. Wealthy, rich, right-wing assclowns can just as easily corner the gold and silver market (although harder on the silver side). 

Anything other than an economy of scale with direct democracy and personal responsibility to make sure things run right is less than zero.

[Achilles Asheelz]

It was considered a personal responsibility of the people to remain aware of the poison of factions – and here we are.  We had a whole list of implied responsibilities we failed to uphold.  If at any point your model requires a responsible input from a collective group of individuals I must admit that it is designed without a basic understanding of the human psyche.  To offset this, most models that require an input from the citizen usually ‘enforce’ responsibility, inherently undermining the purpose of that form of government to begin with.

 

This includes all the current models of which I’m aware, but at least there are amendments, such as write-ins, etc.  They’re pointless extras, and the process is corrupt, but the appeasement quality is there.  Also, given the debate, we would have to discern Rights.  Find a way to balance those rights.  Govern peacefully without external influence, IE: keep all levels of governance organized in a way that prevents ‘hijacking’ from possible enemy states.  Etcetera…

 

“Pure” Democracy was a big argument back then and both sides of the argument, inevitably, discarded it.   The abstract of a once-removed layer takes away all the personal and insignificant issues of the daily citizen and allows a mentality that prioritizes the larger picture.  Without an ability of the citizen to prioritize and process this overwhelming amount of information they’d be spending the majority of their time on State functions – not producing.  Inherently, as is the natural process of faction, people will begin electing representatives to streamline the process.

 

Pure and direct democracies will destroy themselves faster than Communism.  Both fail drastically because they require a level of trust from the citizen and demand a citizen performs certain ‘responsibilities.’  These demands hand too much power to the State architecture from the start.  Not to mention how the citizen is tracked in order to reduce fraud – are there any checks in place? And let’s not forget how easily people are dubbed by something that ‘sounds’ good. 

 

If we were all brilliant I do not think America would be in its current position.  The decentralized concept has merits, but corruption would thrive.  Unlike the days of the concepts origination, cities are now filled with millions of people, and the population is growing.  It would do nothing but break America down into convenient bite-sized pieces for whoever wants a taste.  It would be an alliance of corrupt city-states, and I’d hate to have to travel across several state-lines: *Russian Accent* “Do you have your papers?”

[Terry Bain]

SWEET - finally, we have some discussion going.  Representative Democracy isn't supposed to be quiet.  By comparing contrasting ideas, we start to make some progress towards finding the Occupy ideas that "nobody votes no to."  All of us in the occupy movement are looking for our common ground, while agreeing to disagree on issues that are not in the common interest of all of us.  I am proud of this discussion, guys.  Keep it up, please.

[tony human]

So, Achilles, you would rather be ruled by a small corrupt plutocracy, oligarchy (or whatnot) rather than believe in your fellow man and allow him/her the freedom to make their own associations and for groups to develop that have the betterment of themselves and their community at heart?

It sounds as if your conception of mankind is that he is inherently evil, a position I do not hold.

[Achilles Asheelz]

“An(y) gigantic organization which controls the money supply is an enemy.”
“Any economy not controlled by a community of scale in almost complete participatory democracy is useless as those who are psychopaths (be they in a constitutional monarchy, socialist, communist or representative government) will rise up to gain power and control or the wealth.”
“And I just don't like rich, wealthy, parasitic right-wing asswipes!” -- This is referring to sociological attribute: ambition.

Good sir,

You contradict yourself on many scales so I wish to understand the developed principles of which you support. I understand the basic concepts of what you mean, probably even the complex, but that’s not what I was attempting to achieve through this discussion. The driving point was more for those reading this to understand what you mean in ‘application,’ of your theories.

Saying one supports a particular concept is fine, but to what end? Is that concept developed? Are the basic and fundamental questions addressed that would help alleviate the corruption you’re against? Why is it a good idea? What makes your system better than the corrupt system in place now?

And I quoted you above because it is clear you do not oppose the concept that mankind is inherently corrupt – which are the points you’ve made. As long as the paradigm includes mankind – it will include corruption. If mankind were not inherently willing to push the boundaries and restraints which hold him we’d not have made it this far in the world, but there is a flip-side to that coin: corruption. There is a cost/benefit ratio to everything.

The fact that mankind is, in large percentage, corrupt is no question. I’m sure you’ve done many things in your life others would not approve of when no one was watching. People justify their corruption using political and philosophical (I’m including religion under this category) arguments, but the fact remains that they feel the need to justify themselves.

Not only are we human-beings corrupt, our biggest variable of corruption comes to the surface when interacting with our fellow Man. If this were not the case we would not have so many case-studies on the failures of Communism, or any social hierarchy, that allots trust to the government. You, by your positions, seem to hold no trust for governing authority. So why, by these ends, would you establish a political infrastructure that requires the citizens to trust in their system of governance? It seems self-defeating in nature.

There are a thousand questions that build on that basic premise and it comes down to addressing the issues of social management. Thus why, at this juncture, I’m attempting to establish that in more than a loose philosophical way. We are at a cross-road in America. Not yet, precisely, as the major issues have not boiled to the surface, or the economic collapse, but they’re coming and everyone knows it. So it seems most fitting to define exactly what we believe, what we do not believe, and why. The WHY is the most important key…

[Achilles Asheelz]

People can rant on things that sound nice all day, but the trick is implementing them. If you cannot implement your ideas into something worthwhile, it merely plays against your initial argument and will inevitably become the slave to those corrupt bastards you’re attempting to minimize, because you can bet they’re implementing things right now. Without an agreement, without goals, without structure your ideas will fail like all others in history that have attempted to achieve results through emotions alone. The worst part is: those corrupt bastards have become exceedingly proficient at hijacking causes and movements of an emotional nature, and using them to their own ends.

My goal, by this endeavor, is to turn an emotional idealistic concept into a core of reasonable and logical parameters, by which, would make it very difficult for external influences to eradicate or deflect the momentum of. Personally, I may not agree with your arguments, but that does not mean they do not have merit or do not deserve the power of proper implementation. I learn something new everyday, and to that extent, I'm always reminded of the humble nature to which we should observe the challenges of this strange world. I treat everyone else the same way. We may not agree but if we debate intelligently and come to conclusions together we will, inevitably, meet halfway.

THAT is the beauty of working together. Not that everyone should think the same way, but those who do not can come to a conclusion and system that they DO agree upon which is more diverse, flexible, and innovative than could have been possible otherwise.