Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (277103)	3/1/2006 2:49:57 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573215

Can your reply to my reply? Ted - Capitalism has not been able to cure us of that underclass. Tim - Because the underclass is defined in relative terms. If the economy as a whole had 100 times as much real wealth and the underclass had 20 times, than most individuals, including most individuals in the "underclass" would be financially better off, but official statistics would show a large underclass and a greater disparity in wealth. Tim, the reason I didn't respond to your comment is because it didn't have any bearing on what I am calling an underclass. It seems you do not understand how poverty is defined. It's not a ratio btween the poor and the rich, but rather the amount of money that is needed a reasonable standard of living. And again, I repeat.....capitalism has failed to cure poverty.....and I will take it one step further......in fact, capitalism in the US is leading to a bigger gap between the rich and the poor. Also "There is no great degree of starvation in the US.", is simply true. There might be people who go hungry every now and than, or get very low quality food but there is no great degree of starvation in the US. Sure the favelas in Brazil or the tin shacks in Mexico are worse then our slums, but not by much. Third world poverty is far worse than the poverty anywhere in the US. Yes, its worse. But the difference is not as great as you might think And our poor do not live better than doctors in third world countries. If you compare a typical recipient of public assistance (not the homeless living on the street, or some other selection of the poorest of the poor in the US) to a doctor in the poorest countries in the world (Not Brazil or India, but something like Malawi or Sierra Leone), I'll think you'll find that you are wrong. Sorry but I don't believe that's true.....in general.......but again, what does it matter. The situation that people are barely making it in the worst slums of American cities is not marginalized at all because they may or may not be living better than MDs in poor countries. You and other Republicans don't seem to have a clue how difficult survival is in the poorest ghettos of American cities. It only takes disasters like Katrina to put the poorest people out on the streets. There are people who can barely keep up when times are good. Its really a shame that compassion is in such short supply in your world. ted

To: TimF who wrote (277103)	3/1/2006 2:52:43 AM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573215

I believe it was you that stated that American troops were firmly behind Bush. It seems that is incorrect. American troops want swift pull-out from Iraq By Demetri Sevastopulo and Edward Alden in Washington Published: February 28 2006 19:04 Most American troops in Iraq believe the US should withdraw within the next year, according to the first poll of US military personnel there. President George W.?Bush, whose overall approval rating fell to a new low of 34 per cent this week, has repeatedly said the US would finish the mission in Iraq. But a Zogby International/Le Moyne College poll found that only 23 per cent of US troops believed they should stay “as long as they are needed”. Rare poll reveals rift between president and troops Seventy-two per cent said the US should withdraw within 12 months, and 29 per cent said they should pull out immediately. Meanwhile, a CBS News poll this week recorded another record low for the president – only 30 per cent of respondents approved of his handling of Iraq. John Zogby, president of Zogby International, said US commanders in Iraq unofficially gave approval for the poll of 944 respondents to take place. It took place before last week’s bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra. Although Mr Bush has acknowledged that Iraq played no role in September 11, 85 per cent of the troops said the US mission was mainly “to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9/11 attacks”. The poll revealed stark differences between regular and reserve troops; 49 per cent of reservists and 43 per cent of the National Guard said the US should pull out immediately, against 9 per cent of marines. Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said the poll figures were “not borne out in recruiting and retention statistics”. While Mr Bush insists progress is being made in Iraq, US intelligence and military officials increasingly fear a civil war. General Michael Maples, director of the Pentagon’s Defence Intelligence Agency, told a Senate hearing on Tuesday: “We’re also in a very tenuous situation right now.” news.ft.com