Hamas endorses Obama

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Also, we "promote" a high standard of living, but we do not live up to it. People who live in this country are starving. We're the richest country in the world and we cannot manage to feed our own people. It's so ridiculously depressing that most of us just don't even think about it for our own mental health.

This is probably the crux of the matter. But of course, this is ridiculously overstated. The idea that the American poor live in abject poverty when compared to China or India or Africa is absurd. Sure, we can do a better job of helping our fellow citizens, but I think your comment reflects the true ideology of the American left.

They want us to listen to EU countries when they criticize, because they want us to be like them. They want socialistic economic policy and reduced autonomy. They think it is ok to punish citizens for uttering politically incorrect WORDS. I think this argument goes a lot deeper than a simple plea for international respect. I'm not saying it does with you, I'm just expressing why I think this discussion gets pretty frightening, pretty quickly.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

This is probably the crux of the matter. But of course, this is ridiculously overstated. The idea that the American poor live in abject poverty when compared to China or India or Africa is absurd. Sure, we can do a better job of helping our fellow citizens, but I think your comment reflects the true ideology of the American left.

They want us to listen to EU countries when they criticize, because they want us to be like them. They want socialistic economic policy and reduced autonomy. They think it is ok to punish citizens for uttering politically incorrect WORDS. I think this argument goes a lot deeper than a simple plea for international respect. I'm not saying it does with you, I'm just expressing why I think this discussion gets pretty frightening, pretty quickly.

Both sides get extremely polarized on it.

The idea that just because people are worse off in India and China shouldn't be a way to dismiss the fact that we are richer than those countries per capita and still have people who are starving. I wouldn't care whether it was the government, or charity, or whoever was providing the food, but it is neither or if it's both it isn't enough and that is incredibly tragic.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Both sides get extremely polarized on it.

The idea that just because people are worse off in India and China shouldn't be a way to dismiss the fact that we are richer than those countries per capita and still have people who are starving. I wouldn't care whether it was the government, or charity, or whoever was providing the food, but it is neither or if it's both it isn't enough and that is incredibly tragic.

It certainly is tragic, but I am concerned about where we dump the responsibility. I believe it is on the American people to help the less fortunate (as opposed to the government). But if we ever really want to stop poverty, we have to reduce a culture which condones irresponsibility. I of course am not claiming all people living in poverty are lazy, but there is an epidemic in this country of irresponsibility, and that will certainly be an obstacle to ending poverty in America.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Both sides get extremely polarized on it.

The idea that just because people are worse off in India and China shouldn't be a way to dismiss the fact that we are richer than those countries per capita and still have people who are starving. I wouldn't care whether it was the government, or charity, or whoever was providing the food, but it is neither or if it's both it isn't enough and that is incredibly tragic.

I guess I'm reluctant to agree that we have people starving who the government could actually help, and I think that our actual problem with food for the poor runs more to problems with their eating foods with high caloric content but not particularly good nutritional value, largely because individuals are provided with choice in the food they get.

The people who are starving are people, as much as I know, who because of their own poor mental health, drug use, or illegal immigration status won't seek the help from the community that is available. I suppose we could add ignorance about the assistance available. For example, we've got free or reduced price lunch programs in every public school, and if the needs at a particular school are high enough, they often have breakfast programs as well. We have food stamps, and charity food banks too.

I think the number of starving people in the US who seek help, especially from government funded social services, who are turned away with no food or referrals to other services is probably really tiny. But if they don't know who to ask or how to get the help, it's hard to figure out how all the social programs, especially bureaucratically administrated government ones, will really make anything better.

You can't give people the large amount of personal freedom that we do and then somehow expect that we can take care of everyone, especially in cases where the local community is unaware of the need.

I stand by my claim that people imagine that the world hates us for the very issues that those individuals don't like about ourselves whatever those might be, and while any of us might disagree with a particular reason or set of reasons, there's no way to know what changes we could make that would make people hate us less.

(In general, I agree that our recent foreign policy makes us seem arrogant. Would you educate me about what debts we haven't paid internationally? If it's anything other than basically funding the UN ourselves, I'm interested in learning about it.)

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I guess I'm reluctant to agree that we have people starving who the government could actually help, and I think that our actual problem with food for the poor runs more to problems with their eating foods with high caloric content but not particularly good nutritional value, largely because individuals are provided with choice in the food they get.

It's not something you agree with or don't, it's fact. You're thinking of a stereotype of urban poor.
http://www.secondharvest.org/who_we_...ger_facts.html
This is about elderly people living on fixed incomes, people who cannot support themselves on the wages available, urban and rural.

The people who are starving are people, as much as I know, who because of their own poor mental health, drug use, or illegal immigration status won't seek the help from the community that is available. I suppose we could add ignorance about the assistance available. For example, we've got free or reduced price lunch programs in every public school, and if the needs at a particular school are high enough, they often have breakfast programs as well. We have food stamps, and charity food banks too.

So the mentally ill don't deserve food? These things are wonderful if you live in a large enough city to support them and have transportation etc. Your perspective is very very focused on one portion of the population. See the links above about people in America who resort to eating clay.

I think the number of starving people in the US who seek help, especially from government funded social services, who are turned away with no food or referrals to other services is probably really tiny. But if they don't know who to ask or how to get the help, it's hard to figure out how all the social programs, especially bureaucratically administrated government ones, will really make anything better.

So you're for the social programs run by the government? And if those aren't adequately meeting the needs of the population you'd be for expanding them so they are?

I stand by my claim that people imagine that the world hates us for the very issues that those individuals don't like about ourselves whatever those might be, and while any of us might disagree with a particular reason or set of reasons, there's no way to know what changes we could make that would make people hate us less.

... I cannot follow that sentence. People in the world hate us for different reasons, but you cannot exclude reasons because they don't fit your worldview.

(In general, I agree that our recent foreign policy makes us seem arrogant. Would you educate me about what debts we haven't paid internationally? If it's anything other than basically funding the UN ourselves, I'm interested in learning about it.)

Monetary as well as other promises we make, but you do realize that 25% of our national debt is in the hands of foreign countries right?

We also do owe the UN 1.246 billion dollars because Congress thinks its fun not to pay in order to try and make the UN do what we want. We currently pay 22% of the UN's budget because they have a "ability to pay" scale. This does not make use "basically funding the UN ourselves"

[shinerbock]

To be fair, the UN's reliance on the United States extends far beyond mere financial support.

For example, they were completely unprepared to take significant action on Iraq, despite a decade of Saddam rebuking their authority. (I'm not arguing the war here, just that the UN has no inherent spine).

Look at today, where the IAEA pitched a fit about Syria, and the US told them to go screw themselves. The world's nuclear agency didn't have the information, so they bitched at the US.

[moe.ron]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

To be fair, the UN's reliance on the United States extends far beyond mere financial support.

For example, they were completely unprepared to take significant action on Iraq, despite a decade of Saddam rebuking their authority. (I'm not arguing the war here, just that the UN has no inherent spine).

Look at today, where the IAEA pitched a fit about Syria, and the US told them to go screw themselves. The world's nuclear agency didn't have the information, so they bitched at the US.

The UN is as effective as the permanent 5 will let it be. In another word, the perm 5 does not want an effective UN.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by moe.ron

The UN is as effective as the permanent 5 will let it be. In another word, the perm 5 does not want an effective UN.

For the UN to be effective, the perm 5 has to facilitate it, they are not restraining some innately powerful entity.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

It's not something you agree with or don't, it's fact. You're thinking of a stereotype of urban poor.
http://www.secondharvest.org/who_we_...ger_facts.html
This is about elderly people living on fixed incomes, people who cannot support themselves on the wages available, urban and rural.


So the mentally ill don't deserve food? These things are wonderful if you live in a large enough city to support them and have transportation etc. Your perspective is very very focused on one portion of the population. See the links above about people in America who resort to eating clay.

So you're for the social programs run by the government? And if those aren't adequately meeting the needs of the population you'd be for expanding them so they are?




... I cannot follow that sentence. People in the world hate us for different reasons, but you cannot exclude reasons because they don't fit your worldview.



Monetary as well as other promises we make, but you do realize that 25% of our national debt is in the hands of foreign countries right?

We also do owe the UN 1.246 billion dollars because Congress thinks its fun not to pay in order to try and make the UN do what we want. We currently pay 22% of the UN's budget because they have a "ability to pay" scale. This does not make use "basically funding the UN ourselves"

It's not that I don't think people deserve food, but it's that I believe we presently have in place generally adequate levels of funding to provide food and private groups that actually hand out food. (although it would seem like a good idea to me to reevaluation how we pay farm subsidies to tip the scales toward food production if it we can see that the problem is in fact too little food available.) The breakdown, as I see it, occurs getting the food to the people, mainly because the people in need don't seek the aid, rather than because anyone is withholding it or because we just need more government employees out there ready to document the need.

I think when you really look at who might be going hungry, they are going to be a hard group to serve better, largely because of their own behavior. Since I'm not someone who thinks it's the government's job to force itself on people who don't seek it's help, it's a problematic issue for me. If additional efforts need to me made, I'd rather handle them with tax incentives and private aid to groups who can document delivery of food to people in need.

Paying almost a 1/4 of the UN's bills seems about right to you? Not even getting in to the costs of other support to UN programs? It doesn't to me. In additions to the 22% figure, where do you think most of the private support for UN programs is coming from? I think, even leaving out the military support Shinerbock mentioned, I think if you broke down UNICEF funding or other UN charities, you'd still be looking at way more US support than would seem proportional.

I'm also not bothered by owning debt to other countries as long as we are meeting the terms of the debt repayment. Are we defaulting? If we need to assume government debt, I'd prefer to get the lowest terms or go with a lender who provides some other benefit. If it's international, I think it's okay, but I'll freely admit I haven't studied the issue.

My point about why people hate us is that our perception about why they hate us is really too subjective to let it drive our domestic decision making. They hate us, and we should avoid it when we can, but deciding how we want to conduct our own government based on why we imagine they hate is isn't a particularly good plan.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

It's not that I don't think people deserve food, but it's that I believe we presently have in place generally adequate levels of funding to provide food and private groups that actually hand out food. (although it would seem like a good idea to me to reevaluation how we pay farm subsidies to tip the scales toward food production if it we can see that the problem is in fact too little food available.) The breakdown, as I see it, occurs getting the food to the people, mainly because the people in need don't seek the aid, rather than because anyone is withholding it or because we just need more government employees out there ready to document the need.

Here you seem to be advocating more government support,

I think when you really look at who might be going hungry, they are going to be a hard group to serve better, largely because of their own behavior. Since I'm not someone who thinks it's the government's job to force itself on people who don't seek it's help, it's a problematic issue for me. If additional efforts need to me made, I'd rather handle them with tax incentives and private aid to groups who can document delivery of food to people in need.

Here you're saying it's not the government's job to go further than it has.

Paying almost a 1/4 of the UN's bills seems about right to you? Not even getting in to the costs of other support to UN programs? It doesn't to me. In additions to the 22% figure, where do you think most of the private support for UN programs is coming from? I think, even leaving out the military support Shinerbock mentioned, I think if you broke down UNICEF funding or other UN charities, you'd still be looking at way more US support than would seem proportional.

I didn't give a value judgement on the funding. 1/5 of the cost, based on an ability to pay, is not "basically funding the UN ourselves."

UNICEF and the like are not part of the UN and don't have an effect on the functioning of the UN.

I'm also not bothered by owning debt to other countries as long as we are meeting the terms of the debt repayment. Are we defaulting? If we need to assume government debt, I'd prefer to get the lowest terms or go with a lender who provides some other benefit. If it's international, I think it's okay, but I'll freely admit I haven't studied the issue.

Fair enough, as long as you're comfortable with other countries owning that debt. We do not "have" to assume government debt.

My point about why people hate us is that our perception about why they hate us is really too subjective to let it drive our domestic decision making. They hate us, and we should avoid it when we can, but deciding how we want to conduct our own government based on why we imagine they hate is isn't a particularly good plan.

And as I said, we shouldn't change our policies because Belgium is really pissed off, but we should give a damn that we are pissing off even those countries considered our allies. We should change our policies when they're bad ones.

[shinerbock]

To clarify from earlier about foreign perception...

I do think we should care what other countries think. I think we should take it under consideration and engage in some self-analysis.

But, if we conclude, which I suspect we will in many cases, that those countries have different interests from us, different national ideologies, a different history of achievement, etc...then we should continue doing what we think is best, despite the dissent.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Here you seem to be advocating more government support,
Here you're saying it's not the government's job to go further than it has.

I didn't give a value judgement on the funding. 1/5 of the cost, based on an ability to pay, is not "basically funding the UN ourselves."

UNICEF and the like are not part of the UN and don't have an effect on the functioning of the UN.
Fair enough, as long as you're comfortable with other countries owning that debt. We do not "have" to assume government debt.

And as I said, we shouldn't change our policies because Belgium is really pissed off, but we should give a damn that we are pissing off even those countries considered our allies. We should change our policies when they're bad ones.

I'm not advocating more government support, other than possibly tax credits for private companies or revising farm subsidies that pay people not to grow (ETA: or to grow for the sake of ethanol, just to make the subsidies talk fresh. We currently pay money to people to do things with their farm land other than to grow food. I don't regard it as the government offering more support if we stop or reduce such subsidies although it's certainly the government acting in a way that might produce more food.)

I see all UN programs as being part of the UN. When one figures in all aid to all UN programs the US share is even greater. But this point is neither here non there, other than to say I don't have the same problem in not paying what we "owe" to the UN, but I agree that it's problematic to say we will pay and then withhold funding. Sometimes I'd support completely pulling out of the UN; sometimes I moderate my urge for this extreme because of the other UN programs like UNICEF, which our contribution to the UN does help.

You're right that we don't have to assume debt. I'd favor the government doing less as a way to reduce expense. (We can start with the billions we pay to the UN if you want.) Others favor taxing more. Apparently it's beyond the will of anyone elected to public office just not to spend more than the government takes in and to reduce spending further to allow for debt to be paid off. I don't see anyone is the race who is going to be willing to do that, Hamas endorsed or not.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

The idea that the American poor live in abject poverty when compared to China or India or Africa is absurd. Sure, we can do a better job of helping our fellow citizens, but I think your comment reflects the true ideology of the American left.

But America is a highly developed country and a democracy. China is not a democracy and India and Africa are still developing nations. So you really can't compare. And just look at the hunger problem that exists in staggering numbers in America -- in America! The pictures here say more than 1,000 words, but the words are heartbreaking, scroll about 1/2 way down the page and you'll find this: "Starvation also drives many to eat dirt. Many black women in Mississippi, Alabama and North Carolina eat clay even in the 90's according to New York Times." http://www.american-pictures.com/roots/chapter-16.htm

Not taking responsibility for the reality of this WITHIN OUR OWN COUNTRY and instead trying to make it some figment of the "American left's" imagination only widens the gap between the haves and have nots and leaves millions of American citizens wasting away right beneath our noses.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by nittanyalum

But America is a highly developed country and a democracy. China is not a democracy and India and Africa are still developing nations. So you really can't compare. And just look at the hunger problem that exists in staggering numbers in America -- in America! The pictures here say more than 1,000 words, but the words are heartbreaking, scroll about 1/2 way down the page and you'll find this: "Starvation also drives many to eat dirt. Many black women in Mississippi, Alabama and North Carolina eat clay even in the 90's according to New York Times." http://www.american-pictures.com/roots/chapter-16.htm

Not taking responsibility for the reality of this WITHIN OUR OWN COUNTRY and instead trying to make it some figment of the "American left's" imagination only widens the gap between the haves and have nots and leaves millions of American citizens wasting away right beneath our noses.

Nobody is making it a figment of anyone's imagination. But when people on the left criticize America for having people living in poverty, they're usually not appealing to individual citizens to fix it. When they start promoting individual generosity, not charity at the tip of a spear, I'll think about supporting their arguments. But when they continuously blame America's enterprise system while condoning irresponsible behavior, you're not going to get full scale support in America.

Helping people out of poverty is a great thing, but usually "closing the income gap" is argued in a way that I will never support. And I don't think my objection to that is trivial, I think it is unspeakably important for the future of this country.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Nobody is making it a figment of anyone's imagination. But when people on the left criticize America for having people living in poverty, they're usually not appealing to individual citizens to fix it. When they start promoting individual generosity, not charity at the tip of a spear, I'll think about supporting their arguments. But when they continuously blame America's enterprise system while condoning irresponsible behavior, you're not going to get full scale support in America.

Helping people out of poverty is a great thing, but usually "closing the income gap" is argued in a way that I will never support. And I don't think my objection to that is trivial, I think it is unspeakably important for the future of this country.

When Republicans run the country, the poor don't get fed. When Democrats run the country, the poor don't get fed. It's not a left versus right thing. If the GOP had a marvelous *something* that made sure the poor of the cities and of Appalachia alike had food to eat I would sign on in an instant. At the very least, the Democrats pay lip service to it. It doesn't even seem to be on the Republican's radar.

And that's not even getting into the fact that it takes two incomes to make ends meet these days. It used to be that minimum wage was what it took to feed the man, his wife, and his family. If that had remained the standard, I'd be on your side of the fence, where the unemployed (temporarily) and the unemployable (permanent) are the only ones who really need help.

Instead a household needs 2-3 incomes just to support themselves, and God forbid they get sick or hurt - minimum wage jobs don't provide insurance - because then they're "freeloading" off our healthcare system (aka going into massive debt). THAT is the state of the country today and THAT is disgusting in a country as rich as we are. And the reason why people turn to the government is because the problem is SO huge and the resources of charities are SO small that it is overwhelming.

It is arguably in the best interest of the country for individuals to grow up with good nutrition (WIC, food stamps), education (public schools), and a roof over their heads (subsidized housing). These things are needed for healthy, working citizens.