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: tejek who wrote (318283)	1/2/2007 11:54:26 AM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1575523

Ted, > Do you know any poor people? I suspect not. ... Early in the evening, this guy sat down next to me at a blackjack table. ... A guy who was living out of his car, paycheck to paycheck, shows up at a blackjack table? People should NEVER gamble with money they cannot afford to lose. Any sympathy I might have had for that guy was lost when he showed up at the tables. Even at the $5 minimum tables, $200 can disappear in an instant. Tenchusatsu

To: tejek who wrote (318283)	1/4/2007 6:48:46 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575523

Do you know any poor people? I suspect not. Not only do I know some, I'm related to some. I've got a cousin who married a woman who is good for spending money and suing people. Thats it. She browbeat my cousin into putting her name on the little family farm he inherited from his mothers side of the family. She borrowed against the farm and they ultimately lost it. The lawsuits - once she was in line at Walmart and a clerk pitched a set of keys to the next one - while passing over her head it brushed her hair. She claimed it hit her head and injured her and sued Walmart. Another time she went with one of her high school age daughter's on a school visit to a nearby college. While there she tripped on a sidewalk and got a lawsuit out of that. She generally collects a modest settlement on these things. She hasn't worked in years - everyone in the region knows from her history she'll sue them over alleged personal injuries or sexual harassment. She started out suing over sexual harassment, but has switched to slip and fall, personal injury claims over the years. My cousin, her husband, used to work - he was a mechanic and drove a cement truck for many years. But over the years she convinced him he should stop working and get in the disability game. So he did, though not very successfully. Now they are living in a beat up little rented house out in the hills and have nothing. I've got another cousin who hasn't worked in over 30 years. He seldom even leaves the house he inherited from his parents. The only work he ever did was janitor work. I don't know why - he's intelligent and perfectly capable of doing lots of things. I don't understand why he would rather sit at home and not work but thats what he does. I could tell you about some more I'm related to but I figure this is enough. Since he lives paycheck to paycheck, he couldn't pay his December rent. So he moved into his car. He finally landed a somewhat permanent temp job in a warehouse about two weeks ago. However, at the rate he is paid, he figures it will take two months to get up the security deposit and first month's rent. What is missing here is his family and friends. Ah, you said he has no family. Some folks have no family or friends but most do. And most people get help from their family or friends at times like that - its one of the reasons families are so important to society. As a matter of fact, I paid a relative's rent payment just today. They've given me a little of it and will be paying me back over a few weeks - mostly, I think anyway. Course, this guy might not have any family or friends (except the one that give you a lottery ticket). Or he may have ruined the relationships by past exploitation. You may not realize it but having to scrape by for a while may be very valuable at teaching the virtue of saving for a rainy day - some people only learn lessons the hard way. Now I know you'd say he can't save - he lives from paycheck to paycheck. But the fact is most people really can save if they really try. Man, you can live on beans and rice etc and never eat even fast food, you don't smoke, you don't buy lottery tickets, etc. It's possible to do. And yet we don't care and we make up stories like the one you created which is that their lot in life is improving and that's more than good enough, ignoring the fact that the rich who already have very satisfying lives are moving up much faster. Frankly, from experience, I know its not good enough. You have a problem with the fact that life isn't fair. That life can be hard. But it always has been and always will be. This is why traditional family values and traditional work ethic, thrift, and personal responsibility values are so important. What you don't get is that if you hire govt bureaucrats and pay them a nice salary with good benefits to follow around the people who don't live by the right values, they'll never learn to do so. Furthermore, you'll erode the values of many many more people so that the number of people who need a govt bureaucrat to follow them around picking them up over and over mushrooms. It took years for the first cousin I mentioned to be demoralized by his worthless wife, but it finally happened. There are 37 million Americans whose lives are marginalized because people like you feel its abhorrent to create a safety net for them but its more than okay to blow a trillion dollars on an Iraq. The more you create a great liberal safety net, the more people there will be who will rely on it. How this guy was able to keep up his positive outlook was beyond me. You may not believe this but some people who live on the street are happy too. Some people don't feel the need for much security in their life. Its a puzzle to me why but thats the way it is. However, I do know that every time he lands on the street the more damage he does to his body and his well being. Dental apptments become non existent. I had another SI liberal tell me one time how important dental care was - the government should provide everybody with dental insurance he said. Meanwhile I haven't had a dental appt since at least 1998. Whats the matter with me? Eventually, he will become one of the permanently homeless. I have seen too many scenarios like this one in the land of the home and the brave, and its not good. He may. But he doesn't have to. He may have to try hard but it can be done. This is the land of opportunity. My God, poor people with no education and no English skills sneak into this country because they know they can work here. Which brings me to one thing we could do to help out the lowest rung of American society (w/o creating more of a nanny state) - keep out the wetbacks who take (and bid down the wages of) the jobs the least educated Americans could have. Wages for the simplest jobs would be higher w/o lots of foreigners competing for them and the jobs available to American poor would be numerous. That wouldn't help the two cousins I mentioned earlier unless they changed their thought processes but it'd help guys like the fellow you met at the casino.

To: tejek who wrote (318283)	1/8/2007 11:34:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575523

The statement below......one that you made in your post to me........reflects that attitude: "Yes they are getting richer faster. But as long as every group is getting richer that's hardly a major problem." Neither that statement, not to my knowledge any other statement I have made in any context, reflects, implies, supports, accepts, or argues for a "let them eat cake" attitude. By your own omission, the lowest quintile is not even mentioned by Reynolds/Henderson False. "By your own omission" doesn't make a lot of sense. I assume you mean "by your own admission". If that's what you mean, I make no such "admission" mainly because there is nothing to admit. It isn't true. "But Reynolds shows that Krugman's statement is wrong for two reasons. First, CBO estimates go back only to 1979. Second, the CBO data show that between 1979 and 2000, average after-tax income in each quintile (fifth) of the household income distribution rose. For the lowest quintile, it rose from $13,500 to $14,600" Message 23119031 And yet these are the slowest growing income groups out of a total of 5, meaning they are probably not keeping up with inflation. The figures were adjusted for inflation. Tim, once again, I must ask.......do you ever think with your heart? Have you ever tried to experience empathy? I might feel bad for someone that's poor. But I don't feel bad about the fact that they have become somewhat less poor. Do you know any poor people? Yes. If I didn't it would hardly invalidate anything I've said but I know a very poor (at least by American standards) person quite well, and I know other poor people to a lesser degree. And yet we don't care and we make up stories like the one you created which is that their lot in life is improving and that's more than good enough Saying that overal things are getting better for Americans isn't makeing up stories. Saying that if a broad section of society is doing better that is a good thing, isn't saying that poverty is not a problem, or that everything is good enough. Saying that the rich are getting richer, but generally not at the expense of the poor is simply true, and it also isn't an attack on the poor, or a claim that society has no problems, or that things are not difficult for the poor. As for a sense of guilt why should I (or the people I've quoted or linked to) feel a sense of guilt over the fact that while all broad segments of society are getting richer over time, some are getting richer faster then others? Yeah, I can understand how you might feel that way, scrooge. Why don't you go look for a Tiny Tim to kick. So not feeling guilty (note I didn't even say not feeling bad, just not feeling guilty) over the fact that some people are not increasing their wealth and income as fast as others is equivalent to kicking small crippled boys. I guess "argument" by non sequitur is your new style.