UNITED WAY says almost half of U.S.households can't afford the basics

Fair enough. I'll withhold judgment on the clothes... for now... until she's been in D.C. a year or two, then will look at what she wears and how she acts compared to now. Not optimistic, but stranger things have happened.

 

Well that's a start...thank you!

 

Agreed. And, one cannot grow dependent upon that hand up. That's all it is - a hand 'up'...a way to get up and out of their situation.

 

I don't believe I said I thought it does matter ergo not only do they not know the difference they do not demonstrably care. One cannot teach anything to those who refuse to learn

 

Canned salmon is not cheap in my local super market,Pink is around $3 and Red is around $5 for a can.A can of sardines is 99 cents but it will only barely feed one person, the cans are tiny like the fish.

 

Using a research "study" from the United Way is not unbiased. They are supposedly a nonprofit organization requiring DONATIONS to exist. Therefore, it is not unbiased.

Steve

 

Fluffy the house cat may be better off than the "free" stray cat that has to go dumpster diving every night and doesn't have a safe place to sleep.

I take the freedom of knowing that I won't go hungry, even if I lose my job, or the freedom of knowing that I have healthcare, over the perceived freedom of s stray cat that is accountable to no-one anytime.

BTW: Anyone who is taking prescription drugs is not free. That would be 50% plus of the US population.

 

Of course Fluffy is better off. The only difference between Fluffy and that stray cat is freedom. Fluffy has the freedom of the house, but the stray cat is free to go anywhere.

I know you're from some European socialist country so you don't understand the fervent desire of Americans for freedom. We don't want to be house cats. Well... real Americans don't. Lefties do.

 

I agree, kind of added the don't care. If someone only cares when it gives them advantage, I tend to doubt the sincerity.
Absolutely right in it being impossible to teach anyone who refuses to learn. Frequently, those who refuse are the ones who most desperately need it.

 

What nice things have I said about Hitler?

See, you can't do that. I did say he doesn't hit the top ten list of evil people, but that isn't exactly nice.

warning: if you don't link to something I said nice about Hitler, I'm reporting you.

 

Here:

You were effectively trying to rehabilitate Hitler that entire thread, equating his seemingly valid concerns in your eyes, that the Jews had to be dealt with because of "wartime." And that the Germans only hated people because they were different, that they wanted to make a specific nation built on a people that didn't necessarily hate these groups but they were just an unfortunate impediment to that vision and a danger to the nation. I mopped the floor with you, providing loads of information on the absolute hatred for the Jews that had been stirred up before "wartime"and that Hitler used this terror to galvanize his power over Germany and to exact revenge on all those he hated. And there are many groups whom Hitler hated and whom the Nazis were zealously trained to hate, especially the SS.

Just did, and explained that what you're doing is actually actively seeking to rehabilitate his image, to say to everyone else who thinks he is so bad that he really isn't THAT bad. Here is more of the drivel.

Look at the statements made there, "he managed to do quite a bit for Germany." This kind of analysis suspends time in some way, and only looks at a nation in the same racist way that Hitler did, as comprising the German and not all the peoples who inhabit its borders. Hitler enslaved millions, murdered scores of millions, brought about a war which killed tens of millions, and waged a war of annihilation against a regime he hated absolutely in order to gain more land for his racist Empire and to cleanse it of all undesirables. How did the Germans benefit? Their young were slaughtered in a foolish utopian reign of terror, their cities were bombed into oblivion and Hitler ordered the total destruction of the country by Albert Spier, but this order was not carried out. There is nothing admirable about Hitler's legacy, and to say differently is simply dangerous and untrue.

You said much more than that.

"Umm... he managed to do quite a bit for Germany. It was in turmoil to the Weimar republic and hyperinflation."
"Yes, he killed a lot of people. This is not an unknown situation when it comes to nation states. History is replete with rulers who are not the nicest people in the history of people. What matters is what he did for his people, and Hitler's legacy is not entirely evil."
"I'm not so sure that he had a hatred of minorities, so much as he felt that Jews had no place in Germany because they could not be trusted. You could probably make the case that the idea behind Aryan superiority was simply mirroring the Jews who also defined themselves as distinct sub-sets of caucasians. So he had this completely different race of people in his country, and that is dangerous during wartime. We felt the same after Japan bombed pearl harbor."
"I don't know that he had to stir up any fear and hate."

Given the ACTUAL historical record, I regard these as nice things being said about Hitler in order to rehabilitate his status some degree. You note that he kills, but you also explain this away as common to all nation states, and so Hitler's record should not be over inflated because everyone's murdering folks.

As you said in that thread:

 

Except that the stray cat only has perceived freedom, not real freedom. It is not free to move away from its territory, otherwise it will likely starve.

As to where I am originally from: Germany, not some country you call "socialist" in a derogatory way. Germany has a free market system -- with a strong regulatory and welfare component. People there don't feel any less free than people here. In fact, they probably feel more free because they have the freedom not to worry about a deranged gun nut shooting them up in public spaces.

 

What a fantasy this is, tell me how did the individual overcome the Nile and tame it to man's needs? Civilization depends on collaboration on a wide scale, yes individuals should be a strong and self-sufficient as is possible, but that doesn't mean implementing your ideological fantasy.

Plenty of human beings thrive, our lives are far more complex and the weight of cognition is high, but we still find contentment despite the difficulties of history and life, but I won't say that isn't often based on a lie. Animals exist in a totally different state than us, humans over hunted and were forced to take up agricultural lifestyles, and no animal has had to adapt to such a transformation. Religion, laywers, governments, all those are imperfect human constructs to deal with these new conditions where we have to live together and cooperate on large scales, or be overcome. That was how things were back then, which is essentialy an evolutionary journey that has produced what we currently have, which is still albeit imperfect but sounds a hell of a lot better than the Social Darwinist fantasy, which has never been implemented. And the periods of time closest to it being implemented are punctuated with horrific suffering, which you of course gloss over in your examination of the "natural state."

Humans were not totally aware of their impact on the environment for much of that destruction, we are now, and I agree that is a fundamental problem which undermines the current establishment. I just don't think YOUR ideas are the answer, because like the idea of polluting the planet, the idea of destroying all the institutions and moorings of civilization will simply create anarchy. Governments are imperfect, but there is no way to sufficiently provide security and a stability for markets to exist, and it is also the only way to peacefully mediate our differences without endless fracturing and fighting.

What do you mean by natural necessity? You don't view human life within its proper context, and don't understand the incentives civilzation impose on humanity. The structure of society from the start incentivized greed and hording wealth, just as it also incentivized military strength, and that is the way it actually evolved. So to say something else is natural is actually synthetic recreation of what mankind actually is, we must understand the world as it really is if we wish to change it, and you fundamentally are confused about this I think.

Bees and Ants are hardly comparable to human civilization, neither have cognition, or the emotional diversity of mankind including our propensity towards tribalism. As if humans could merely operate as bees in a hive, all serving with a singular mindless purpose. These civilizations are not complex, at least not with comparison to human civilization which we scarcely understand and comprehend.

What other species has industrialized the planet and needs to maintain a global distribution and communications network or billions starve? You seem to object to the notion that humans are above nature, and in doing so try to make any analogy to nature utterly valid, but this is I think actually decontextualizing humanity. The reason why it is said we are higher than animals, is because of cognition and being in this post civilization world. No other animal has culture, no other animal has higher cognition with diverse languages developed. No other animal has such massive fictional narratives which have woven nation states and religions into massive cooperative institutions, sometimes for good or ill.

That's for many reasons, religion which was the cornerstone of civilization for so long, became an impediment to thought which dogma from the Holy Books began to contradict discoveries dug up from the Earth. Its unfortunate those ignorant men from the Bronze age didn't preemptively predict evolution would be true, but it looks like the Abrahamic religions ended up duping a lot of people into believing special creation, and a static state to life.

 

Well being on SSI and such I live largely food wise on my SNAP benefit but do okay my main issue is the cost of rent which is why my father and I are moving to Indiana the housing there is much lower by half and a government check is gold to landlords. Disabled people tend to not be issues and have the ability to pay the rent reliably with a COLA. Medical care is covered by Medicaid. So don't feel deprived.

 

Just wait until the Republicans get their way, which for the record I truly hope they don't for all those who are sick or disabled.

 

It's been posted that over 90% of the 12 million jobs created under Obama's policies were service jobs. In 2013, 77% of all jobs created were part time. Obama and Pelosi told us that all those good paying manufacturing jobs were gone and not coming back. Insinuating that Americans might as well be content in having a service type economy. Well we saw how many of those were, service type in the fast food industry. Trump has changed all that, he has brought back in less than two years, over 10 times the manufacturing jobs brought back by Obama in eight years. But we still have a big problem that will hold down wages more than we would like and that is trade and competing with foreign companies making the same product. I think that is one reason we see business giving out more bonuses than raises, although some companies gave both, some others increased benefits. They don't want the wage gap to get to high, where they can't compete with foreign made products.

 

I would say Congress has a little worry there also. Democrats control Congress.


A MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC:

Each year the Trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds report on the current and projected financial status of the two programs. This message summarizes the 2016 Annual Reports.

Both Social Security and Medicare face long-term financing shortfalls under currently scheduled benefits and financing. Lawmakers have a broad continuum of policy options that would close or reduce the long-term financing shortfall of both programs. The Trustees recommend that lawmakers take action sooner rather than later to address these shortfalls, so that a broader range of solutions can be considered and more time will be available to phase in changes while giving the public adequate time to prepare. Earlier action will also help elected officials minimize adverse impacts on vulnerable populations, including lower-income workers and people already dependent on program benefits. Read more https://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/

 

Its really funny to watch people complain when "you" say we should restrict food stamps to items like what you listed. Honestly, to make things really easy for food stamps users, there should be a section in stores of what is specifically allowed to be bought with food stamps so that way people aren't having to search around the store. Even the limited stuff for WIC isn't very easy to find with the "WIC" tags next to the price. Either a special section or a delivery service of preordained meals the person can get walked right out to their car so the receiver doesn't have to waste time shopping. They should never be allowed to go to McDs or any other fast food place anymore.

 

The left will harp about global warming all day long because of computer models which have all been wrong. But then they thumb their noses at basic math and how the SS and medicare programs are insolvent.

 

Since the Alice project includes technology, I take it with a grain of salt.

 

I'm fully aware you don't agree, don't understand, and probably will never understand. That inability to adapt, to recognize and adapt to things you do not have power over, is the fatal flaw that will eventually cause the extinction of the human species. We are so smart, we can't see ourselves as part of nature and work with it, we have to think we are natures master and not subject to it's rules. How long will it take us to end the experiment? Perhaps another thousand years? Maybe. Maybe sooner.

 

This amounts to a vacuous declaration that I am wrong, without rebutting any of my points as I addressed yours line by line. Typical, this place isn't really worth my time.

 

First, you ignored the responses- which were made to vacuous"points" in the first place.
When you have a serious logic fault and demand that any challenge must be proved using only your scale.....
There is no hope for you. You are stuck, and nobody can help you.
IF you can't see outside your own box, there is nothing to discuss.

 

I don't swallow your ideological BS without question and therefore am without hope. Lol, and what did I fail to respond to? Your argument is fairly simple to understand, its basically a semantic argument which ignores history and comes to wrong conclusions about human nature. Just another ideological fantasy, without reference to the real world or how such a fantasy would actually enable human thriving, it is just assumed that somehow if we got more "natural" we would somehow thrive like other wild animals do.

 

You would have to set aside what you think you already know to understand, to stop expecting answers to fit comfortably into what you already believe. If you were not raised with the right examples, that is very hard. Few people can do that until life gets so desperate that they hit rock bottom and their beliefs are shattered. In humans, just as with most animal species, what is learned early in life determines the course of their life.

What matters here is that we learn how to be what we are. Every animal in nature is gifted with all it needs to be successful as what it is- thus, rabbits don't swim well and fish don't run well- but both are totally equipped to thrive as what they are. However, every animal also has to learn, to acquire skills- and those skills must enable it to use it's natural gifts to fit into the world with everything else. In nature, those who don't learn those skills don't survive. They don't get to breed, and often they don't get to eat, and they often serve only to feed something else. While many people see that as harsh and cruel- it is what works; it is why all those species have thrived over eons. Humans do have unusual capacities, and it is possible for humans to minimize the effect in numerous ways- but expecting someone else to be responsible for their welfare is to degrade the quality of life, not enhance it.

That is what we do. We do that because we fail to recognize the long-term effects of our choices, because we like to think we are helping- when in fact we are enabling, subsidizing weakness that would not survive on it's own, failing to teach the strength and wisdom of independence. We breed and subsidize weakness, and constantly pay the price in terms of homeless, drug overdoses, senseless violence and much more. As the share of us in that category of weakness and dependence grows, the drain on the species will eventually exceed it's ability to carry the dead weight. When you have an entire society or species that thrives, it is because each of it's individual members know how, and make the right choices. Many species do help each other- but they help those who are unable to help themselves, and would be if they could. We help and subsidize those who could but won't.

Experience and consequence are the fundamental teachers in life. For an animal, failing to hunt results in hunger, and that becomes one potent motivator, unless some human comes long and makes it dependent. People learn by experience too. If you once touch a hot stove burner, you know for the rest of your life that it's something to be avoided.
Man typically insulates people from the consequences of poor decisions. I'm not talking about helping people in need for the right reasons, I'm talking about the practice of insulating them from their own stupidity and ignorance. IF a child touches a hot burner for the first time- but instead of instant pain, the pain didn't appear for a month, the connection between his action and the consequence would not be established at all, and he would do the same thing again. When we gift people with things they don't work for and earn, we have a similar condition- they fail to value what was free, and thus fail to take care of it.

Nature has a few principles for the way life must be managed, that apply to every living thing. If you fail to understand them, they will work against you, and that is not negotiable. If you understand and use them, they work for you. There is not alternative here; anything you do that does not respect those principles will have consequences. It may be immediate, it may be 20 years away- but it will affect your ability to make the most of yourself. The point is not to live as other animals are designed to do, but as humans are designed to do. It would be possible for any animal to make stupid choices and destroy itself- or any species of those animals to make stupid choices as a group and destroy itself. In nature, the first example does not turn into the second example, because the one who behaves irresponsibly does not survive and inspire others to act with equal stupidity. Nature does not care if humanity succeeds or fails, it is indifferent- that challenge is up to us. We're losing.

Nature's first principle of life is that Every living thing is responsible to and for itself. That is a fundamental principle that enables you, gives you the power to control your own life. Without it, you will not have that power. In nature, lacking that is fatal in short order. Among humans- it takes longer, but eventually is equally devastating. It's neither complicated, nor avoidable. I am responsible for every thing I do, say, think or feel, and accepting that gives me control over my life and destiny. It also frees me from the obligation to allow others to control me, which our society loves to do- but must have my help to do. I alone can change those things, nobody else really has the power.

I gladly give a hand-up to the man in trouble who understands that, but I refuse to give a hand-out to the man that thinks someone else is responsible for his choices and welfare. I hold others responsible for the things they do, say, think of feel, because I have no control over that, and in my opinion- no right to interfere or deprive them of it. IF they refuse to accept their responsibility- they abdicate their control over their own life; they become pawns that other will use, but never respect. Within that fundamental principle is the difference between people who can thrive, and people who only survive. You won't find that principle in the constitution, the bible or anyplace like that. Nature IS the only force that can create such fundamental facts, and no science in the world has the power to change it.

I never advocated living like animals- I advocate learning from them, learning from success, from nature, in order to live up to the potentials that humans could have- if we didn't think we were too smart to learn. Unfortunately, too many of us are.