--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think it's much use to tell a poor person that he or she is better off than > many people were 100 years ago. The poor do not need history lessons. > What really lies behind Shemp's claim that poverty in the US has been > eliminated is a reactionary political agenda that is typical of the Bush > administration.
When I read stuff like this about the Bush Administration, I don't know whether to laugh or cry. feste37, have you ever looked at the federal government budget? If you had you would know that the Bush Administration is spending MORE of our money than LESS...even on all the varied social programs and entitlement programs that the federal government doles out. It seems to me that you are buying into the stereotype of the Bush Administration as some sort of conservative cut-back-on-government right-wingers when they are the exact opposite...that's why many conservatives are so unhappy with them. We're now over $2.4 trillion in our annual spending as a federal government...WAY more than under Clinton. It's people like ME who want to cut back on all those social programs, NOT people like Bush. > In fact, I'm surprised they haven't thought of this one, since > they do have a habit of dealing with problems by redefining terms and then > claiming that the problem has been reduced or eliminated (redefining what is > a pollutant, for example, to claim that pollution is being reduced). If you > redefine poverty so as to claim that it no longer exists, you can then just let the > poor rot, which is of course the real aim of the exercise. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, a_non_moose_ff <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "feste37" <feste37@> wrote: > > > > > > If your point is that poverty in America is very different from > > poverty in, say, > > > Bangladesh, of course that is true. It's obvious. Poverty is a > > relative concept. > > > > Yes and no. There is an "absolute" level of poverty that was the point > > of the original remarks -- characterized by severe lack of food, > > shleter, clothing and transportation, and of course higher level > > "necessities" -- healthcare, education, etc. This absolute level of > > poverty has been almost eliminated in modern countries. That is a > > great achievement given that it has been a hallmark of mankind "forever". > > > > > > > > > > > if > > > you don't have the things that the majority of people in your > > society have, and > > > therefore cannot participate fully in that society, you are poor. > > > > So your view leads to a conclusion that there will always be poor, > > there will always be a lowest 10-20% in the socio-economic strata. > > Several interesting points come from this view: > > > > 1) It would imply those leading a spiritual and/or ecological > > ultra-low consumption lifestyle are "impoverished" -- even though its > > possible that such persons are the happiest people on earth. > > > > 2) The contemporary poor in any age may have access to goods and > > sevices unavailable to and even undreamed of by the richest 100 or > > even 50 years earlier. Current poor may not have access to all > > available modern medications. (Though most/many in US are). Yet 50 > > years ago, even the richest had no access to such drugs, at any price. > > And most poor have internet access. To me, the internet is a dream > > come true of many lives -- instant access to much -- growing to most > > --knowledge. 100 years ago, I would have paid a $millon for such, but > > even at that price, it was not available. > > > > > > > You ask about deprivations. Lack of health insurance, for one, which > > means > > > that people see doctors less often than they should do and need to > > do, and so > > > lack preventive care. Inability to pay for needed medications is > > another > > > deprivation. Choosing between food and medication is another. > > > > A choice that was not even available to the richest strata 50 years > > ago. 100-200 years ago, it would be great fortune for the (average in) > > richest strata to live as long as the average poor person today. > > > > > > >I'm sure there > > > are many more. It's called "going without," and the poor quietly > > learn to do this, but that doesn't mean they are not poor. > > > > Going without that which was only recently unavailable to all a few > > years ago. > > > > I bet you would crave to live today the "poor" lifestyle of 50 years > > from now. > > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Join modern day disciples reach the disfigured and poor with hope and healing http://us.click.yahoo.com/lMct6A/Vp3LAA/i1hLAA/UlWolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
