Do I want the troops out of Iraq? Of course.

Do I want the troops out of Iraq before the job is done? No way.

That's pretty much it for now.

Liberate us Americans from what? Our democratically elected government? Our civil rights?

What oppresses us?

Jimro

How about our vast social inequality?

It's not inequality when God tells us to "shun" them.

~Rico

Troophead,

Are you daft?

Social inequality? The only way to "liberate" us from "social inequality" is to FORCE everyone into an "equal state".

That means fascism and oppression, and as such we would no longer be "free".

Rico,

Freedom of religion... doesn't mean you have to like it.

Jimro

Well I knew Jimro with a sense of humor was an imposter. So I guess I'll have to fire off a serious note.

You have to treat people equally, Jimmy. 90% of businesses require it for you to stay an employee. Maybe the army doesn't, if so its a logical choice for you.

If I said, well my boss is gay so I'm going to shun him. How long do you think I'd stay employed?

~rico

Rico,

I don't have much humor when the matters are really important.

Unless your boss is a Christian he hasn't put himself into the "body of believers". If you aren't a Christian you aren't part of the "body of believers". Shunning only applies to those who are Christian.

But just like a devout Jew isn't going to hang out with a pork and blood sausage eating neo-Wiccan and encourage him in those acts, Christians also have standards of conduct.

It's just like if you were a Mason and your boss wasn't, you woudn't expect your boss to know all the rules of Freemasonry, would you? But you would expect your fellow Masons to know the rules and play by them.

Shunning is the consequence when a Christian refuses to give up a particular sin, whether it be adultery, fornication, or homosexuality. Ever wonder why most Protestant churches don't allow divorced and remarried Pastors?

Shunning is about being denied access to the fellowship of other Christians, symbolically being "cut off" from the body of believers. It is meant to be a "here and now" warning of what will happen if one willingly stays in sin, that on the day of judgement GOD will cast you out of his presence into the lake of fire.

Nor is "shunning" the first action. The first thing that happens is a fellow believer will talk with the person to see if they can resolve the issue. If that doesn't work, then three or four witnesses try again to resolve the issue. If that doesn't work then the issue is to be taken in front of the whole Church, and if it can't be resolved, only then is "shunning" appropriate. And forgiveness will be waiting once the person turns from their sin and seeks God.

What are Christians supposed to do with non-Christian sinners? To be kind, and honest, but to keep ourselves from being lead astray by their sin, whatever sin it may be.

I don't know if your anti-Christian attitude is because you really don't know about Christian faith, or whether it is simply reflex action on your part. However, I guess if you did know more about Christian faith you wouldn't have a problem with "shunning".

Of course I have to deal with the people who say, "I went to church for years, so I KNOW what I'm talking about when I say all Christians are intolerant bigots!". To put that statement in perspective, I know people who went to SCHOOL for years and don't know ALGEBRA. Just because you sat in a pew doesn't mean you went to seminary.

I also have to deal with all the zealots who are so gung ho for GOD that they forget that the rules of Christianity only apply to Christians. We have our nutcases too, who twist scripture to support their own argument instead of reading GOD's teaching with an open mind and heart.

Rico, if you have any more questions, I would be happy to discuss them with you either here or in PM.

Jimro

oh dear, i get the feeling i'm going to get shunned by jimro now.
ah well! ^^

i'm glad i go to a church where we prefer to love our fellow person then 'shun' them for the terrible sin of sex before marrage and so forth. jesus died for our sins, that sacrafice would've been in a vain if apparently we're all going to burn in hell anyway for daring to fall in love.

*flees the topic, pursued by people crossing their fingers and screaming 'unclean! bad christian!'*

Jesus died for our sins, yes. He died so that we could have our sins be forgiven by God so that we could enter Heaven.

However, Jesus also told to the harlot in the Gospel to go and sin no more. His sacrifice was not in vain, but it kind of defeats the purpose if you continue to sin without repentance.

And I wonder how many times I've used this phrase before, but I'll use it again anyway.

Love the sinner, hate the sin.

Loving the sinner is fine Becca. But to not offer them help and advice on how to stop sinning would be counterproductive.

This song is pretty lame. Why should Americans be focusing MORE ON AMERICA? So the war in Iraq was a mistake, that doesn't mean that Americans should turn inward and become self-pitying. Asking for help from the rest of the world? What about providing more aid for billions living in poverty and disease?

I'm going to have to go with Jimro's first comment here. I in no way believe that this country is without injustice and inequality, but I don't believe for a second that our problems are so dire that we should forget the fact that the large majority of individuals living here have luxuries (like food, water, a democracy that at least can function without mass violence and basic shelter) that so many are without.

It's not worth my time to read something that long when I already know what it is says.

BACK TO TOPIC!

America First! Why worry about other country's are doing? I mean, it worked to ignore Japan during WWII didn't it?

~Rico

You know, America helped put Japan back on its feet after WWII. Same with West Germany.

Remark<--

Ultra's Head<--

Ompa Loompa<--

~Rico

Quote:

---

Social inequality? The only way to "liberate" us from "social inequality" is to FORCE everyone into an "equal state".

---

Jimro, sorry if I come off sounding like a Communist. I'm not. I never said "make everyone equal." My parents lived under Communism for many years, and Communism is social equity if you believe fun things like kneeling on glass is utopia. Inequality itself is not the problem, unequal opportunity is. The problem is not that there's a rich man and a poor man and the rich man should involuntarily give the poor man all his money. "Involuntary giving" is the definition of theft. I understand that someone will always be richer and someone will always be poorer, and that's how life is.

I do have a problem if poor people stay that way not because they're stupid or lazy, but out of social stratification. I'm talking about the people who are smart enough for college but can't afford it, people with sound business models who can't get startup loans, people who are willing to work but there are no jobs in their area, or old people who've worked hard all their lives but have been unable to save for retirement. Poor people need to grasp capital ownership not through revolution, but through financial literacy. My local community college is now offering skill-development classes for free. A lot of companies currently offer their workers stock holdings. A lot of banks and financial institutions are starting to extend microcredit. This isn't a leftist radical phenomenon in the least.

Quote:

---

America First! Why worry about other country's are doing? I mean, it worked to ignore Japan during WWII didn't it?

---

Quote:

---

You know, America helped put Japan back on its feet after WWII. Same with West Germany.

---

Rico is satire.

Quote:

---

This song is pretty lame. Why should Americans be focusing MORE ON AMERICA? So the war in Iraq was a mistake, that doesn't mean that Americans should turn inward and become self-pitying. Asking for help from the rest of the world? What about providing more aid for billions living in poverty and disease?

---

Aye. Oh, just to start... "aid" should be not constituted as a handout. Aid is meant to built international economies in the long-run, not just emergency relief. This should stabilize violence overseas, create better foreign relations, and create a consumer demand in the future for our goods. It's not a handout, it's development.

Troophead,

If you erased all borders today, and allowed people free movement, do you think that there would be a mass exodus FROM the US? Or do you think that all those seeking to build a better life would come here and try to live out that dream?

There isn't unwilling social stratification in the US. Right now it is easier for a poor black to get a college education than a poor white. If you are Native American it's easier as well.

But what no opportunity can give an individual is drive and a hunger to succede. Invariably the most successful groups in the US are those that have the least safety nets, Asians, Hispanics, and Caucasians. Ethnic groups that have a well deserved reputation for a work ethic... Unfortunately that reputation hardly applies to the Caucasians I've seen lately.

If someone is willing to settle for the lowest common denominator, that is their own problem. America is the land of opportunity. There is no excuse that anyone can give that will make up for individual shortcomings.

"The Man" isn't keeping anyone down.

Jimro

Quote:

---

This song is pretty lame. Why should Americans be focusing MORE ON AMERICA?

---

What the heck? You need reasons? I'll give you a couple.

1 ) Our morals are screwed up.
2 ) Our government's priorities are shot.
3 ) The education systems don't seem to be working anymore.
4 ) The law's too slow.
5 ) Crime's too fast.
6 ) Criminals have more rights than they should. They actually try to get in jail because their life in jail is better than it is on the outside. And you're paying for it.
7 ) Most parents would rather MTV teach their kids about sex and drugs rather than themselves.
8 ) Lazy parents would rather anyone do their job for them. And a lot of people take them up on that offer.

I'm stopping for now.

(heartily cheers for Questern)

Quote:

---

If you erased all borders today, and allowed people free movement, do you think that there would be a mass exodus FROM the US? Or do you think that all those seeking to build a better life would come here and try to live out that dream?

---

I don't deny that point, or ever did. On the whole, I do think the American Dream is possible. On the whole, I do think that this is the best country in the world. I also think that because of this ideal that we can and should be doing more to help the underpriveleged, provided that they deserve it.

Quote:

---

There isn't unwilling social stratification in the US. Right now it is easier for a poor black to get a college education than a poor white. If you are Native American it's easier as well.

---

I would call that unwilling social stratification. "Reverse" racism is racism.

I don't believe that "social stratification" is some sort of institutionalized oppression by "The Man," but rather the phenomenon of limited social mobility. What I do mean is that it's hard to make money if you don't already have money, regardless of talent, meaning in many cases rich people get richer and poor people get poorer, independent of merit.

Quote:

---

But what no opportunity can give an individual is drive and a hunger to succede. ... There is no excuse that anyone can give that will make up for individual shortcomings.

---

What I sincerely hope for is providing opportunities for individuals who already have the drive and hunger, and also to instill it in people who didn't know they had it. I'm talking about kids who didn't know they liked science until a great teacher came into their lives and gave them a lifelong love of learning. This isn't to say that when an individual fails they shouldn't take responsibility. However, we have a moral responsibility to help people as much as possible, with the expectation that they will contribute to society in return. Ex: if someone falls on hard times and is homeless, give him a job where he can do honest work. Give him shelter until he can pay for a place of his own again. That's what we should be paying for. But if he decides he's going to @#%$ up that opportunity, lazing about and doing drugs... that's when you employ secret government agents/katana-wielding vampire hunters in black trenchcoats/ Area 51 alien chupacabra zombies/ attack demon dogs to shoot him in the head. ("But Troop," you say, "demon dogs can't use guns!" ... "Oh yeah! They can when they're SECRET GOVERNMENT DEMON DOGS!" :P) I have a very selective bleeding heart.

Quote:

---

Why should Americans be focusing MORE ON AMERICA? What the heck? You need reasons? I'll give you a couple. 1 ) Our morals are screwed up. ... 8 ) Lazy parents would rather anyone do their job for them. ...

---

I fail to see this so-called "moral decay" of America that everyone keeps talking about. Everyone in every generation believes that the current generation is less moral than the last. There's some more detailed discussion on Google Answers about historic documented complaints regarding moral decay. I would contend that we are actually more moral than before, and more conscientious of morality. This generation is the least violent (in terms of crime) that we've ever seen. We actively decry the slavery of our Founding Fathers and the segregation of a "better" time, we make an effort to provide due process to everyone, we treat everyone equally under the law regardless of birth or breeding... I could go on and on. (I have a list written up somewhere, "Why America is Awesome," if anyone would like to see it.) Independent of a perceived decline in moral values, we are still absolutely better off than many countries in terms of sanitation, life expectancy, health, literacy... things which can be statistically tested and observed (unlike morality), and problems which can be easily addressed with a little help from our end. There's no reason to withraw into isolationism and "focus on America first."

Quote:

---

I fail to see this so-called "moral decay" of America that everyone keeps talking about.

---

It's those damn gays Troop, everyone knows they're the downfall of society.

~Rico

Troophead,

What I do mean is that it's hard to make money if you don't already have money, regardless of talent, meaning in many cases rich people get richer and poor people get poorer, independent of merit.

It's easy to make money, there is this thing called a "JOB" that people get to exchange their labor for this stuff called money, that they can use to get get or services.

Merit has nothing to do with getting rich or poor. Hard work and luck have a lot to do with getting rich or poor. Whether people deserve a better life or not may have absolutely nothing to do with WHAT they have CHOSEN to do with their life.

Success is not a guarantee, and there are plenty of rich folks who blow their money up their nose, or smoke it away. Read the stories coming out of Hollywood...

There are plenty of poor kids who get an education and retire wealthy. You have already agreed to this. You somehow think we need to to MORE for folks who won't do more for themselves...

I don't get it.

Jimro

There isn't unwilling social stratification in the US. Right now it is easier for a poor black to get a college education than a poor white. If you are Native American it's easier as well.
If white people hadn't spent the last few centuries treating those groups like crap then we probably wouldn't have this problem.

Cycle, the issue is more complex than that and you know it.

Heck, ask a poor undereducated African American whether he'd rather be here or in Africa, and don't be surprised when the vast majority of those polled say here.

The problem isn't providing opportunity to Blacks, the problem is not enough of them take the opportunities available instead of turning to drugs/gangs/crime to truly combat the culture of victimhood that is integral to the "Black Experience".

Don't forget that the Chinese brought here to work on the railroad were "Treated like Crap" as well, but you don't see the crime stats from the Asian American population that you see from the African American population.

Hard work pays off.

Jimro

Don't forget that the Chinese brought here to work on the railroad were "Treated like Crap" as well, but you don't see the crime stats from the Asian American population that you see from the African American population.
You obviously haven't been to Vancouver.

Cycle,

Would you like to compare Vancouvers crime states with, lets say, Detroit? Washington DC? Or how about Tacoma? Explain to me why I "obviously" haven't been to Vancouver.

And how the heck is comparing your Canadian city even applicable to racial issues in the US?

Jimro

Yeah Cycle! Everyone knows Canadian Asians are a COMPLETELY different race than American Asians.

~Rico

Rico,

Immigrants and organized crime go hand in hand. Just like the Italians and Irish mobs are a part of our American history. The fact that Vancouver is a major port on the Pacific Rim may explain Cycles pre-occupation with "asian crime". I haven't been able to find a breakdown of crimes committed by asians for Vancouver, but it would be interesting to compare first and second generation stats with 3rd and 4th generation stats.

www.boardoftrade.com/vbot...ageid=1837
www.media-awareness.ca/en...ulture.cfm
www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/...S/home.htm

And here is a success story of immigration.
bloodletting.blog-city.com/

Jimro

Immigrants and organized crime go hand in hand. Just like the Italians and Irish mobs are a part of our American history. The fact that Vancouver is a major port on the Pacific Rim may explain Cycles pre-occupation with "asian crime".
I have no "preoccupation", nor am I trying to make any sort of point in this discussion. I am merely pointing out that asians aren't, like, genetically predisposed to not commit crimes.

Cycle,

You felt the need to specify that asians aren't genetically predisposed to lawful behavior?

I dub thee "Captain Obvious!".

Jimro

Quote:

---

It's easy to make money, there is this thing called a "JOB" that people get to exchange their labor for this stuff called money, that they can use to get get or services.

---

You're not theCycle, there's no need to get sarcastic and patronizing. A lot of the time, a minimum wage job is only enough to provide for a subsistence lifestyle, but won't cover emergencies, and certainly not retirement. It may be enough to survive, but it's often not enough to provide hope. In a lot of areas there just aren't any jobs. In some areas, jobs are only seasonal. Being a hard worker is not enough. I worked at a homeless shelter in East Baltimore, and one of the men there said to me, "Please please please let me work at McDonalds." Yes. There is this thing called a "job." Unfortunately, this man lives in a ghetto, where this "job" thing does not exist. And even if he were to somehow teleport to a better part of the city and find a job, where is he to live until he can eke up the money to find a place to live?

Money in exchange for labor is not the same as money for capital. Here's a story:

I have a friend whose cousin owns a lake. This cousin is a complete slacker.. he's stupid, untalented, and doesn't work for a living. But he is rich because he owns a lake which he inherited, and rents out to campers, canoers, and other tourists. Why's he rich? He does jack squat. He doesn't even provide services of maintaining the lake. He's rich because he owns income-earning assets, not because he does anything.

Why is it that the guy in East Baltimore who's willing to work is stuck in a homeless shelter and the slacker with a lake is rich? It doesn't have anything to do with hard work. It's all in what you had originally. People should sink or swim by their own abilities and choices... their actions should dictate whether they succeed, not their initial conditions.

Quote:

---

Whether people deserve a better life or not may have absolutely nothing to do with WHAT they have CHOSEN to do with their life.

---

Merit:
"1. a) Superior quality or worth; excellence.
b) A quality deserving praise or approval.
2. Demonstrated ability or achievement."

I'm not quoting this to be a dick, just so that we're on the same page, since I use the word "merit" like crazy. When I say "merit," I don't mean what someone deserves by moral virtue. You can be an inherently good person. You may have suffered a lot in your childhood. Neither virtue nor suffering mean you should get prosperity handed to you on a silver platter. I think we agree on this. I'm talking about volition and ability, not some inherent worth. If someone makes good choices, they should get a little help.

Quote:

---

You somehow think we need to do MORE for folks who won't do more for themselves...

---

Mm, no. I think we need to do more for folks who will do more for themselves. For example, I don't see why a poor kid who's just as hard working and as willing to learn as a rich kid has to suffer through a worse educational system just because he's poor. Will that prevent the kid from succeeding? Well... no. People with enough a will to survive can claw their way out of a ten foot snowdrift. But there's no reason why we can't give the poor bloke a shovel.

Heeeyy, there's a second page! I didn't know there was a second page!

Quote:

---

The problem isn't providing opportunity to Blacks, the problem is not enough of them take the opportunities available instead of turning to drugs/gangs/crime to truly combat the culture of victimhood that is integral to the "Black Experience".

---

May I say "amen" to this?

Amen.

Rico: People are people, color of skin doesn't affect that.

Jimro: Rico, Immigrant's cause crime.

...? Huh? What?

~Rico

Rico: People are people.

Cycle: Asians cause crime in Vancouver.

Jimro: All immigrant populations are associated with crime.

To get back to Rico's point that people are people, I completely agree.

However, not all people have the same culture or value system.

Troophead: The guy who owns the lake may not always own the lake, property is stolen from individuals everyday under the heading of "eminent domain".

The accident of birth that gave your cousin income earning assets still requires him to actually do something to get income from said asset. He has to collect fees, go to the bank, file taxes. There is really no such thing as "free income".

If you are rich enough you can pay other people to manage your assets for you. Wouldn't that be nice?

The lesson from "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" (which I haven't read fully) is that poor people work for their money, and rich people let their money work for them.

Startup capital isn't essential to building wealth. As long as you have income, and can balance a budget so that your outgo doesn't exceed your income, then you can plan a successful financial future.

www.mdmproofing.com/iym/babysteps.shtml
www.daveramsey.com/etc/cm...entID=2867

Jimro

Whether people deserve a better life or not may have absolutely nothing to do with WHAT they have CHOSEN to do with their life.
It is a proven fact that people who come from a poor family have a high likelihood of staying poor, regardless of how hard they choose to work.

Also it doesn't help when governments enact obscenely stupid laws like British Columbia's $6/hour "training wage" which is essentially the closest thing to legalized slavery in Canada.

Quote:

---

Whether people deserve a better life or not may have absolutely nothing to do with WHAT they have CHOSEN to do with their life.
It is a proven fact that people who come from a poor family have a high likelihood of staying poor, regardless of how hard they choose to work.

Also it doesn't help when governments enact obscenely stupid laws like British Columbia's $6/hour "training wage" which is essentially the closest thing to legalized slavery in Canada.

---

First off, being poor in the developed world is still pretty well off by world standards. I'd rather be poor in the US than poor in Suriname. And "poor" will always be compared against "rich". In 1950 the average house was less than a thousand square feet and didn't have a washing machine, what was middle class living is now "poor" living simply by changing standards. So your statistical fact does not portray the reality of living and income class in the developed world.

6 dollars canadian is more than the US Federal minimum wage. Just so we are clear, Slaves DON'T GET PAID at all. Comparing minimum wage to slavery is an insult to common sense.

How is a training wage any different than the reduced pay that apprentices serve through the unions? If you want to talk about specific economic issues or "economic oppression" if you are a bleeding heart liberal, we can do that.

And if you would be so kind as to produce the source for your statistic, I would like to look at the math myself.

Jimro

6 dollars canadian is more than the US Federal minimum wage.
Vancouver is home to some of the highest costs of living in North America, and among the highest tuition fees in Canada, and yet the Campbell government expects students and homeless people to somehow magically make themselves prosperous and educated with what is little more than enough money to cover the rent on a small apartment in Langley.

How is a training wage any different than the reduced pay that apprentices serve through the unions?
An apprentice is receiving a practical education for a skilled trade that is guaranteed to make him quite wealthy.

And if you would be so kind as to produce the source for your statistic, I would like to look at the math myself.
I didn't really have a source to begin with; I always figured it was common knowledge at this point. Very well: http://www.mdcinc.org/docs/NCPov_March2006.pdf

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not one of those guys who thinks that poor people are doomed to be poor forever and we should give them all our money. However, the argument can be made that a person who was born into poverty is highly unlikely to escape it because:
a) they probably have little or no education and transferrable skills;
b) what money they do make, if any, is rarely enough to pay for anything more than the basic necessities of life, and in order to make this money they must work full-time which severely limits their opportunities to do anything else;
c) they are probably in a poor state of health and hygiene and are unlikely to be hired for any kind of prestigious or physically demanding work, because let's be honest here, even a garbage man has to look presentable for his job interview;
d) they probably live in a community where the economy is stagnant or shrinking; and
e) they may be suffering from some kind of mental illness or social disorder.

Cycle, I think you might actually need to read your source.

Over the ten-year period 1995-2005, a total of 23 percent of sampled households moved out of poverty,
i.e., they were poor in 1995 and not poor in 2005. Conversely, 12 percent of households fell into poverty
during the same period. Two opposite movements were simultaneously operating in every community
that we studied. Some families were falling into poverty even as some families were coming out of
poverty.

So nearly double the families elevated themselves out of poverty than fell into poverty, I can live with that ratio.

So what was your source about it being statistically hard to get out of poverty again?

Jimro

Quote:

---

Vancouver is home to some of the highest costs of living in North America, and among the highest tuition fees in Canada, and yet the Campbell government expects students and homeless people to somehow magically make themselves prosperous and educated with what is little more than enough money to cover the rent on a small apartment in Langley.

---

Then don't live in Vancouver on "learning" wage. Notice how you lump students and homeless people together.

I'll ignore the homeless people, but let's address students.

There are always financial options.

Housing? Roomates to split the cost. Live with family.

Food? Buy in bulk and do your own cooking. Potatoes are cheap and nutritious. Buy meat when it's a buck a pound (or two bucks a kilogram)

School? Work hard to get scholarships and use student loans if you must.

Transportation? Weren't you bragging about Vancouvers wonderful public transit system? Bicycles are also a good option.

I think that you expect the government to provide all the benefits of a normal support network (friends and family).

And just in case someone never told you, students are generally poor and have to sacrifice to get an education.

As far as homeless people, in my limited experience they are homeless because they can't hold down a job in the first place. Normally for mental health reasons. Before you go off on the issue of the homeless, I realize that there are usually more factors at work, especially the missing support network.

Jimro

So nearly double the families elevated themselves out of poverty than fell into poverty, I can live with that ratio.
I was more indicating the fact that more families either "remained poor" or "remained not poor", especially over the 5-year period.

So nearly one in 4 families move out of "poor" and you see it as "3 out of 4" stay in "poor" and then take it as the gospel truth that "It is a proven fact that people who come from a poor family have a high likelihood of staying poor, regardless of how hard they choose to work."?

Did you read the report? It clearly stated that full time employment or taking a second job (either by the primary or spouse) was the single biggest contributor to gettting into "not poor".

Employment was the main factor associated with moving out of poverty. Among all households that
escaped poverty between 1995 and 2000, 56 percent identified finding a job as a principal reason for this
transition. Among households that escaped from poverty during the second sub-period, as many as 75
percent identified employment as a critical reason for their elevation.
Beyond having a full-time job, households moving out of poverty often worked in more than one job,
started a business, or benefited from a spouses employment. Between 1995 and 2000, out of 28
households that escaped poverty and reported employment, 16 households cited full-time employment,
while the remaining 12 households reported additional jobs or business ventures. This contribution of
second and third jobs and side businesses increased dramatically during the second sub-period. Less
than half of all households that escaped poverty during this sub-period reported full-time employment,
while more than half reported additional jobs or side businesses as the principal factor responsible for
their escapes. Working harder and longer hours adding a second or even a third job was more
important for escaping poverty during the second sub-period.
A comparison of these figures with those of households that remained in poverty reveals two main
differences. First, among households that remained in poverty, significantly fewer households
experienced employment as a significant factor. More importantly, households that remained in poverty
relied upon a single job, reporting fewer incidences of second or third jobs or spousal employment.
Budgeting
Sound budgeting was another reason associated with households that found employment and moved
out of poverty. Careful budgeting and paying off debts were mentioned as important factors associated
with upward mobility. Budgeting played a more prominent role between 2000 and 2005, when 25
percent of households escaping poverty reported budgeting as a factor associated with their improved
economic situation. Of households that escaped from poverty in the first sub-period, 15 percent cited
budgeting as an important contributing factor.

Once again, hard work usually pays off.

Jimro

Is he REALLY trying to argue with someone about where they live? This one is a new level even for Jimro. XD

~Rico

what the heck are you talking about Rico?

Jimro

I thought I was clear.

~Rico

break it down for me Barney style....

Jimro

Nah, I'll let you two twibble, don't let me hold ya up.

~Rico

I think people often underplay the importance of access -- how some people have much greater access (oh, let's take George W. Bush as an example), while others (oh, let's take the Steve the black kid that was born in a Queensbridge housing project and just got busted for smoking weed). George was given access to prestigious education, access to other monied and powerful people with whom he could "network," given access to all kinds of positive prejudices being applied to him because of his skin color, his dialect, who his father is, etc. Steve, on the other hand, was defintely NOT given access to quality or prestigious education, he was NOT given access to a network of powerful people, rather he was given access to a group of people that were equally poor and troubled, and then to top it off lots of strangers immediately apply negative prejudices against him because of his appearance and dialect. Now, I recognize that, despite all that, Steve could definitely still make it places, I'm just pointing out how it's not exactly as simple or egalitarian as certain staunchly meritocratic people might claim.

I've known talented people who could easily succeed in many positions, unfortunately they're only given so much access, unlike other people I've seen who get nice gigs because of who their daddy is or because of the country club their family attends. The old boy network isn't quite as stifling as it used to be, but I firmly believe it still exists. I mean look at our politicians, who remain overwhelmingly rich white men. That's one part voter prejudice, I know, but it's also one part old boy network.

I had a teacher from a working class background tell me once about how he attended McGill and couldn't believe the rich people. They're just different than us, he would tell me. He would point out how one kid would get a nice internship at a big bank, and that kid would think they earned their internship through hard work and talent, but any idiot could see that the president of the bank was his daddy's golf partner. A friend's father would say similar things about being a scholarship kid at a prestigious private school, and vowed that his children would only attend public institutions. Just watch that "My Super Sweet Sixteen" show on MTV and tell me you're not disgusted.

You talk about a problem and yet you offer no solution.

The old boy network has been established like any other social network. Just because someone isn't a member does not mean that they cannot be successful in life. By success I mean relative financial security and an increase in the standard of living that your parents had.

Why is it that you find "My super sweet sixteen" sickening, I'm assuming by the "I'm entitled" attitude that girls have towards their daddies, and you are not sickened by the sense of entitlement that some feel just because they are born a certain shade, or a member of a certain tribe.

It's sickening to witness someone beg Daddy for everything they want, but it's perfectly acceptable to demand special treatment from the government based on ethnic background?

The solution is to do nothing drastic. As more minorities enter the "old boy network", like Colin Powell, Condie, and the rest of the gang, the more minorities will be able to "equalize society".

Growing up in the sticks I saw poverty, it isn't inner city poverty, but it is poverty none the less. People are just people no matter where they live, and what Stevie the poor inner city kid really lacked was proper adult guidence, not access to the "old boy network".

Jimro

Being in the Air Force myself, i do sacrafice alot of my time to give to everyone else. I personally dont like the desert, i have to go there once in a while after all. I do believe in continental security, aka keeping to ourselves and stuff. however, we have to clean up the mess that we were forced to make, to help ensure a country isnt overtaken by a dictator who doesnt give a crap about his people. do you like seeing people get shot in the streets? if you do, go over to iraq, youll get a lovely view. we are over there to help put them on a road that isnt leading to a third world life. we want them to be able to walk the streets without getting shot or blown up.

I do support our own well being in the USA, but when you have a chance to help other people, sometimes its just a matter of wanting to let others know how it feels to be safe and secure, and maybe then they can enjoy the same things we do.