114
   

Where is the US economy headed?

 
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 12:43 pm
okie, I'm sure there are as many stories behind the poverty as there are people in that group. What is important is the simple fact that more families have fallen into extreme poverty during Bush's presidency. We see the homeless in our city in the middle of Silicon Valley where many homes now cost over one million.

Don't knock yourself out to figure it out; it's probably beyond your comprehension level.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 02:43 pm
Yes, you're probably right. I am too dumb, after all, I am a stupid hick, an okie. Only statiticians have the right answers, only certain statistics that is, yours, right? And did you even read my link? Which I agree with wholeheartedly, including the fact that people under the poverty line are living better than they used to, and in my opinion they may live better than rich people did 50 years ago, certainly 100 years ago.

This generation is a bunch of cry babies, cicerone, if you want my honest opinion. And if worked minimum wage, I would find a way to get ahead, bank on it. If I had to do without a telephone or a car, I would, plus other things. Face it, even many bums carry around cell phones these days.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 02:47 pm
okie, you are dumber than you claim. Statistics only classifies groups into different scales of income and living standards. That's inclusive of all the stories behind the rich, middle class and the poor, and how they "got there."

If you want to challenge those statistics, show us what you have done to survey the people in our economy to show how and why those statistics are wrong. Not some babble about you know some people...

okie wrote: This generation is a bunch of cry babies, cicerone, if you want my honest opinion. And if worked minimum wage, I would find a way to get ahead, bank on it. If I had to do without a telephone or a car, I would, plus other things. Face it, even many bums carry around cell phones these days.

Not all are crybabies, okie. Some have made it; I have met many in my travels - all over the world, and in my own family (I've told this story often on Abuzz and on a2k). We're talking about "trends" here for the general population. Do you understand the concept?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 04:38 pm
Quote:
Which I agree with wholeheartedly, including the fact that people under the poverty line are living better than they used to, and in my opinion they may live better than rich people did 50 years ago, certainly 100 years ago.


What you are talking about are technological contrivances, entertainments, and conveniences; these things are nice, but they aren't life.

You know what people who are living under the poverty line don't have? Security. They are one car accident or broken arm or 'downsized division' away from being on the street. This leads to all sorts of problems for themselves, their children, and society as a whole.

NO poor person lives better than ANY rich person did 50 years ago. It's a ridiculous thing to say, because that rich person has immense security in his life. The fact that the poor guy has color tv and a microwave doesn't change this fact.

Quote:
Face it, even many bums carry around cell phones these days.


This is a ridiculous thing to say. We have a lot of bums in San Fran; something to do with the warm weather and abundant homeless shelters. I've never seen a single one with a cell phone, ever, and I see dozens if not hundreds of homeless people on a daily basis.

You seem to have a real misconception of the difference between poverty - poor - destitute. Bums and the homeless are destitute.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 04:52 pm
okie sees one homeless with a cellphone and translates that into something ridiculous! Makes one wonder how he knows they guy or girl was homeless. Did he ask or just another one of his useless assumptions?
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 05:35 pm
in canada , homeless women are often given older model cellphones by social services .
since the 911 feature works even when one has not signed up for cellphone service , it allows the women to call for help if needed - quite a reasonable thing to do rather than throwing the phones into the garbage bin imo .
hbg
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 05:44 pm
Well, we weren't really talking about homeless, but on that subject, a large percentage are because of drug abuse, alcoholism, or mental illness.

cicerone and cyclops, have you ever heard of the poor houses of the past? Surely you have. And hopefully you won't claim that was a better time to go back to.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 05:46 pm
okie wrote:
Well, we weren't really talking about homeless, but on that subject, a large percentage are because of drug abuse, alcoholism, or mental illness.

cicerone and cyclops, have you ever heard of the poor houses of the past? Surely you have. And hopefully you won't claim that was a better time to go back to.


I'm not at all sure how this relates to our current discussion.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 05:50 pm
okie attempts at diversionary tactics that doesn't work. He needs to grow up.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 05:51 pm
We have to give okie credit for a good imagination.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 05:54 pm
Quote:
Well, we weren't really talking about homeless, but on that subject, a large percentage are because of drug abuse, alcoholism, or mental illness.


Forgot - do you have stats on this being the cause of their homelessness? Or is this one of those percentages which is sort of made up on the spot?

You didn't respond to my point about Security being a critical factor for quality of life, Okie. Why not?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 06:01 pm
okie wrote: Quote:
Well, we weren't really talking about homeless, but on that subject, a large percentage are because of drug abuse, alcoholism, or mental illness.

okie just shows more ignorance about "drug abuse, alcoholism or mental illness." FYI, that's not a choice or desire; it was a mistake for many, but once hooked, they had no control as with any other disease. Some (very few who try it) do not get hooked. Mental illness strikes at least one percent (minimum) of the population - no matter what gender, race, class or country.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 06:54 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
Mental illness strikes at least one percent (minimum) of the population - no matter what gender, race, class or country

I would think it is a disease (yes a disease--not a personal choice) much higher than 1%
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 07:40 pm
okie wrote:
also isn't it true that small business is growing in terms of percentage of employees accounted for in this country, so perhaps the impact on mass layoff statistics is affected that way.


Forgive me for interrupting ci and okie in the middle of assaulting each other. Your comment above, okie, may be true. I know of no way to prove it or disprove it. I can say that some 50 or 70% of small businesses fail within a year or two.

Can they afford to pay above minimum wages, much less provide health care benefits, vacation pay, sick leave pay? Probably not. But, okie, this is a sector of our economy that is seen to be growing. And we are supposed to get excited about that?

There is this big bubble in the middle, the so called middle class, who bought stuff like houses and anything else they could put on their credit cards. All of that debt, built on the illussion that great times would go on forever, is going to come crashing down.

And I haven't even mentioned the Whole Food Markets Inc. thing.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 08:01 pm
I borrowed the following from nimh's thread:

Quote:
America's hungry? They're just suffering from "low food security"

What do you call that phenomenon you feel when you need something to eat but can't afford to put any food on the table? We might call it "hungry," but then, we're not Bush administration officials who'd rather not acknowledge that the number of "hungry" people in America has increased over the last five years of "compassionate conservatism."

As the Washington Post reports this morning, Bush's Agriculture Department has struck the word "hungry" from its annual report on what it's now calling "food security."

The report measures the number of Americans who can't afford to put food on their table during at least some period of the year. The Agriculture Department's Mark Nord says "hungry" is "not a scientifically accurate term for the specific phenomenon being measured" in the report. Thus, people formerly described as suffering "food insecurity without hunger" -- meaning that they'll probably get something to eat, somehow -- and "food insecurity with hunger" -- meaning that they'll go without food for stretches of time -- shall henceforth be known as sufferers of "low food security" and "very low food security."

Oh, and then there's this. The hunger/food insecurity report usually appears in October. This year's version -- the fifth straight to show an increase in the number of hungry Americans -- was held for release until after last week's election.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 11:22 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Well, we weren't really talking about homeless, but on that subject, a large percentage are because of drug abuse, alcoholism, or mental illness.


Forgot - do you have stats on this being the cause of their homelessness? Or is this one of those percentages which is sort of made up on the spot?

You didn't respond to my point about Security being a critical factor for quality of life, Okie. Why not?

Cycloptichorn

I did not make it up, obviously. It is something most people would have heard by now, haven't you? Or simply walk through an area where homeless are sitting around and you could figure it out. I never quoted a percentage. I simply said a large percentage. This thread isn't really about homelessness, but if you haven't yet figured out what the homeless problem is about, you could look it up. If you can find statistics disproving my point, be my guest. I suppose if I said the sun came up in the east, you would accuse me of making it up?

About security, you have a point, but security is only one facet of the conveniences of modern life. However, are there more rich people now than 50 or 100 years ago, percentage wise? I could look it up, but don't feel like it now, but I suspect the percentage has grown.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 11:31 pm
okie, What in the world are you trying to say about drug abuse, alcoholism and the mentally ill?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 11:37 pm
realjohnboy wrote:
okie wrote:
also isn't it true that small business is growing in terms of percentage of employees accounted for in this country, so perhaps the impact on mass layoff statistics is affected that way.


Forgive me for interrupting ci and okie in the middle of assaulting each other. Your comment above, okie, may be true. I know of no way to prove it or disprove it. I can say that some 50 or 70% of small businesses fail within a year or two.

Can they afford to pay above minimum wages, much less provide health care benefits, vacation pay, sick leave pay? Probably not. But, okie, this is a sector of our economy that is seen to be growing. And we are supposed to get excited about that?

There is this big bubble in the middle, the so called middle class, who bought stuff like houses and anything else they could put on their credit cards. All of that debt, built on the illussion that great times would go on forever, is going to come crashing down.

And I haven't even mentioned the Whole Food Markets Inc. thing.


rjb, you are quite a mild mannered poster here. Thanks. As far as assaulting each other, I view cicerone as just a very staunch liberal Democrat, and he is not ever going to admit the Republicans can do anything right. He also likes to run down the country, which really is highly irritating. I want to say something not often heard on forums like this. I feel extremely grateful for living in such a wonderful country, where hard work is rewarded, where we have the freedom to pursue happiness. Happiness is not wealth in my view, but responsible living is part of happiness, and usually being responsible will bring us most of the comforts we want and need. Also, happiness is not a constitutional right, but the pursuit of it is. So if people want to sit around and feel sorry for themselves and constantly blame the country, or the system, or rich people, or something else, for their unhappiness, I don't know what will fix it.

Now, on to health care benefits. Contrary to what some politicians say these days, the constitution does not guarantee health care as a right. It is a problem, and we need to work on it, but I do not believe government health care will improve it. That is another debate subject all by itself.

In regard to buying houses and then cannot afford them, my parents taught me to live well within my means, and that means do not buy a house you can barely afford, or the one the real estate agent said you can afford. Buy something less instead. That applies to everything, cars, furniture, vacations, you name it. Unfortunately, I believe people are living beyond their means much more now than 50 years ago. Some of what we observe today is not altogether the economy. It involves the lifestyles, habits, and attitudes of this generation vs past generations.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 11:47 pm
cicerone imposter wrote:
okie, What in the world are you trying to say about drug abuse, alcoholism and the mentally ill?

I said what I meant to say. I feel sorry for those with that problem, and I have seen it personally. Mental illness is an illness, and we need to take care of those people. I believe that wholeheartedly. Drug abuse and alcoholism is a choice, at least initially. I also feel sorry for people with that problem, but you can only help those people if they want help, and often they have to hit bottom before they want it. Any help provided should have strings attached, otherwise you become an enabler instead of a helper. Dealing with such problems is not pretty, and like it or not, people can be their own worst enemy, and on top of that, true misfortune can strike any of us regardless of our choices. However, if we stay away from drugs and alcohol, and live responsibly, I believe we have only a very small chance of being destitute or homeless.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Feb, 2007 11:48 pm
okie, You're wrong from the get-go. I'm not a "staunch liberal democrat."

I and over 65 percent of Americans agree that Bush has done a miserable job as president. Only about 35 percent still thinks he's doing a good job. Included in that 65 percent are many conservative republicans.

As for "making it," all my siblings and most of our children are doing just fine, thank you! We come from a very modest background, but my older brother was an attorney and was an administrative judge in California. My younger brother is an ophthalmologist with and MBA, and is now a state legislator. Our sister is an RN. Most of our children have college degrees, and many are in the "professions" such as medicine, dentistry, chemistry, and PhDs. Both our sons graduated cum laude.

We are not strangers to hard work; I barely graudated from high school, but eventually earned a degree and worked most of my (short) working career in management, retired early, and now travel the world about eight times a year.

I have volunteered at nonprofit organizations in their board, and also served on the Santa Clara County grand jury for the 2003-2004 year.

All my brothers and I served in the military.

I'm a proud third generation American.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The States Need Help - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fiscal Cliff - Question by JPB
Let GM go Bankrupt - Discussion by Woiyo9
Sovereign debt - Question by JohnJD
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.11 seconds on 01/09/2025 at 05:59:38