[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Why should I snip my posts? If you think they're too long, you snip them. ** In referring to snipping of posts, what's meant is that you do not delete previous message material that you do not need to include in your post, which wastes bandwidth (although that's probably not too compelling an argument considering the vast wasteland that is the web), and more importantly, wastes reader's time by having to scroll through a lot of unnecessary material. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: Why should I snip my posts? If you think they're too long, you snip them. ** In referring to snipping of posts, what's meant is that you do not delete previous message material that you do not need to include in your post, which wastes bandwidth (although that's probably not too compelling an argument considering the vast wasteland that is the web), and more importantly, wastes reader's time by having to scroll through a lot of unnecessary material. I've gotten complaints directed against me in the past for snipping posts because I've been accused of selectively deleting info that would prejudice the arguments I make. So I would just as soon not snip at all. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante no_reply@ wrote: In referring to snipping of posts, what's meant is that you do not delete previous message material that you do not need to include in your post, which wastes bandwidth (although that's probably not too compelling an argument considering the vast wasteland that is the web), and more importantly, wastes reader's time by having to scroll through a lot of unnecessary material. I've gotten complaints directed against me in the past for snipping posts because I've been accused of selectively deleting info that would prejudice the arguments I make. So I would just as soon not snip at all. ** You, or anybody, could just make a link to the original post in its entirety -- otherwise, people have to scroll through a lot of material that quickly becomes very long and quite unnecessary: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/87471 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
My objections to your posts on poverty are first that you stereotype the poor (does anyone ask you if you are spending your money on frivolous things?) and second that your definition of poverty is out of the mainstream, useless and wrong. Just to give one example, consider this, which I took from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development at http://www.nccbuscc.org/cchd/povertyusa/index.htm Since 1999, the number of poor Americans suffering from `food insecurity' and hunger has increased by 3.9 million - 2.8 million adults and more than one million children. In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in households experiencing food insecurity - that is, not enough food for basic nourishment - compared to 33.6 million in 2001 and 31 million in 1999. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, October 2003.) So much for your notion that no one in this country suffers from a lack of the necessitites of life. Perhaps you have a rosy view of things because Arizona doesn't figure in the top ten poverty states, which are 1. Mississippi 17.3% below the poverty line 2. New Mexico 17.3% 3. Louisiana16.8% 4. District of Columbia 16.7% 4. Texas16.7% 6. Arkansas16.4% 7. Alabama 16.0% 7. Kentucky 16.0% 9. West Virginia15.8% 10. North Carolina 15.1% --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I did define it. You must have missed the post, since you didn't respond to it. I don't know offhand what the number of the post was and don't have time to go to it now. Here 'tis: 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. 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. First, thanks to Judy for finding feste37's definition. Okay. The way you define poverty is completely different from the way I define it. I do NOT define it as a relative concept which is, of course, the way it is defined by the poverty line definition. Plus, my definition has NOTHING to do with whether or not you have the same things as the majority of the people in society have. Nor does my definition include whether or not one can participate fully in that society because they don't have the things that the majority have. That's an approximation of a standard definition, I think, if I remember my social science classes from about 15 million years ago. 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. 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. ...and I contend that there is no one that the above applies to in America...and that is why there are no poor people. There are social programs -- government or otherwise -- that will take care of those essential needs. Now I'm going to go back and answer the questions you asked me that I haven't yet responded to. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I knew it would get around to this pretty quickly: the poor spend their money on booze and cigarettes and on other stuff that they shouldn't buy. They should really be more responsible, just like we are (who do not have to put up with their privations). And as for the 1,000 dentists within a 50- mile radius who would be happy to treat the deserving poor for free -- that's a good one! Where on earth do you live, Shemp? Is this another Texan fantasy? And who decides who is deserving? Do YOU have to prove you are deserving when you get health care? Do YOU have to prove you don't smoke or drink? Tell you what, feste37, you answer my questions about the definition of poverty and then I'll get around to answering YOUR question. And I'm not trying to just play and game of tit-for-tat with you; the definition of poverty really is at the heart of this debate. I have no idea what you mean by poverty whereas you know what I mean (because I've given you my definition). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com,
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My objections to your posts on poverty are first that you stereotype the poor (does anyone ask you if you are spending your money on frivolous things?) and second that your definition of poverty is out of the mainstream, useless and wrong. Just to give one example, consider this, which I took from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development at http://www.nccbuscc.org/cchd/povertyusa/index.htm Since 1999, the number of poor Americans suffering from `food insecurity' and hunger has increased by 3.9 million - 2.8 million adults and more than one million children. In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in households experiencing food insecurity - that is, not enough food for basic nourishment - compared to 33.6 million in 2001 and 31 million in 1999. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, October 2003.) So much for your notion that no one in this country suffers from a lack of the necessitites of life. Sorry, I don't believe it for a moment. If you and I went down to the homes of the people in the study, what do you think we'd find? I think we'd find people wasting their money on fast food or cigarettes or beer. The reality is that you can earn minimum wage in this country and have enough for basic nutritional intake. Don't believe everything you read...and start to think for yourself, feste37. Oh, and two more words for you: food stamps. Perhaps you have a rosy view of things because Arizona doesn't figure in the top ten poverty states, which are 1. Mississippi17.3% below the poverty line 2. New Mexico 17.3% 3. Louisiana 16.8% 4. District of Columbia 16.7% 4. Texas 16.7% 6. Arkansas 16.4% 7. Alabama16.0% 7. Kentucky 16.0% 9. West Virginia 15.8% 10. North Carolina15.1% --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I did define it. You must have missed the post, since you didn't respond to it. I don't know offhand what the number of the post was and don't have time to go to it now. Here 'tis: 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. 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. First, thanks to Judy for finding feste37's definition. Okay. The way you define poverty is completely different from the way I define it. I do NOT define it as a relative concept which is, of course, the way it is defined by the poverty line definition. Plus, my definition has NOTHING to do with whether or not you have the same things as the majority of the people in society have. Nor does my definition include whether or not one can participate fully in that society because they don't have the things that the majority have. That's an approximation of a standard definition, I think, if I remember my social science classes from about 15 million years ago. 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. 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. ...and I contend that there is no one that the above applies to in America...and that is why there are no poor people. There are social programs -- government or otherwise -- that will take care of those essential needs. Now I'm going to go back and answer the questions you asked me that I haven't yet responded to. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I knew it would get around to this pretty quickly: the poor spend their money on booze and cigarettes and on other stuff that they shouldn't buy. They should really be more responsible, just like we are (who do not have to put up with their privations). And as for the 1,000 dentists within a 50- mile radius who would be happy to treat the deserving poor for free -- that's a good one! Where on earth do you live, Shemp? Is this another Texan
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
It's hard to debate with someone who continually resorts to demeaning stereotypes and refuses to accept facts. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: My objections to your posts on poverty are first that you stereotype the poor (does anyone ask you if you are spending your money on frivolous things?) and second that your definition of poverty is out of the mainstream, useless and wrong. Just to give one example, consider this, which I took from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development at http://www.nccbuscc.org/cchd/povertyusa/index.htm Since 1999, the number of poor Americans suffering from `food insecurity' and hunger has increased by 3.9 million - 2.8 million adults and more than one million children. In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in households experiencing food insecurity - that is, not enough food for basic nourishment - compared to 33.6 million in 2001 and 31 million in 1999. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, October 2003.) So much for your notion that no one in this country suffers from a lack of the necessitites of life. Sorry, I don't believe it for a moment. If you and I went down to the homes of the people in the study, what do you think we'd find? I think we'd find people wasting their money on fast food or cigarettes or beer. The reality is that you can earn minimum wage in this country and have enough for basic nutritional intake. Don't believe everything you read...and start to think for yourself, feste37. Oh, and two more words for you: food stamps. Perhaps you have a rosy view of things because Arizona doesn't figure in the top ten poverty states, which are 1. Mississippi 17.3% below the poverty line 2. New Mexico 17.3% 3. Louisiana16.8% 4. District of Columbia 16.7% 4. Texas16.7% 6. Arkansas16.4% 7. Alabama 16.0% 7. Kentucky 16.0% 9. West Virginia15.8% 10. North Carolina 15.1% --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I did define it. You must have missed the post, since you didn't respond to it. I don't know offhand what the number of the post was and don't have time to go to it now. Here 'tis: 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. 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. First, thanks to Judy for finding feste37's definition. Okay. The way you define poverty is completely different from the way I define it. I do NOT define it as a relative concept which is, of course, the way it is defined by the poverty line definition. Plus, my definition has NOTHING to do with whether or not you have the same things as the majority of the people in society have. Nor does my definition include whether or not one can participate fully in that society because they don't have the things that the majority have. That's an approximation of a standard definition, I think, if I remember my social science classes from about 15 million years ago. 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. 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. ...and I contend that there is no one that the above applies to in America...and that is why there are no poor people. There are social programs -- government or otherwise -- that will take care of those essential needs. Now I'm going to go back and answer the questions you asked me that I haven't yet responded to. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I knew it would get around to this pretty quickly: the poor spend their money on booze and cigarettes and on other stuff that they shouldn't
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's hard to debate with someone who continually resorts to demeaning stereotypes and refuses to accept facts. Tell you what, Mother Theresa, why don't you go down to a soup kitchen in your neighbourhood and take a look at the people in line. See how many thin people there are. You know, to even suggest that there are people hungry in this country is an insult to the REAL poor of the world who are truly deserving of your attention and faux-pity and faux-concern. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: My objections to your posts on poverty are first that you stereotype the poor (does anyone ask you if you are spending your money on frivolous things?) and second that your definition of poverty is out of the mainstream, useless and wrong. Just to give one example, consider this, which I took from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development at http://www.nccbuscc.org/cchd/povertyusa/index.htm Since 1999, the number of poor Americans suffering from `food insecurity' and hunger has increased by 3.9 million - 2.8 million adults and more than one million children. In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in households experiencing food insecurity - that is, not enough food for basic nourishment - compared to 33.6 million in 2001 and 31 million in 1999. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, October 2003.) So much for your notion that no one in this country suffers from a lack of the necessitites of life. Sorry, I don't believe it for a moment. If you and I went down to the homes of the people in the study, what do you think we'd find? I think we'd find people wasting their money on fast food or cigarettes or beer. The reality is that you can earn minimum wage in this country and have enough for basic nutritional intake. Don't believe everything you read...and start to think for yourself, feste37. Oh, and two more words for you: food stamps. Perhaps you have a rosy view of things because Arizona doesn't figure in the top ten poverty states, which are 1. Mississippi17.3% below the poverty line 2. New Mexico 17.3% 3. Louisiana 16.8% 4. District of Columbia 16.7% 4. Texas 16.7% 6. Arkansas 16.4% 7. Alabama16.0% 7. Kentucky 16.0% 9. West Virginia 15.8% 10. North Carolina15.1% --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I did define it. You must have missed the post, since you didn't respond to it. I don't know offhand what the number of the post was and don't have time to go to it now. Here 'tis: 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. 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. First, thanks to Judy for finding feste37's definition. Okay. The way you define poverty is completely different from the way I define it. I do NOT define it as a relative concept which is, of course, the way it is defined by the poverty line definition. Plus, my definition has NOTHING to do with whether or not you have the same things as the majority of the people in society have. Nor does my definition include whether or not one can participate fully in that society because they don't have the things that the majority have. That's an approximation of a standard definition, I think, if I remember my social science classes from about 15 million years ago. 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. 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. ...and I contend that there is no one that the above applies to in America...and that is why there are no poor people. There
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: It's hard to debate with someone who continually resorts to demeaning stereotypes and refuses to accept facts. Tell you what, Mother Theresa, why don't you go down to a soup kitchen in your neighbourhood and take a look at the people in line. See how many thin people there are. You know, to even suggest that there are people hungry in this country is an insult to the REAL poor of the world who are truly deserving of your attention and faux-pity and faux-concern. ** Tell you what, Mr. Compassion: http://www.keyway.ca/htm2000/2823.htm Have fun on that hunting trip with that compassionate conservate, Dick (Duck!) Cheney...and by the way, learn how to snip your posts... 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
Give it up, Shemp! Your views are absurd and ridiculous. They rely on prejudice and obnoxious stereotypes, and they ignore well-established facts. They cannot be taken seriously by anyone. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: It's hard to debate with someone who continually resorts to demeaning stereotypes and refuses to accept facts. Tell you what, Mother Theresa, why don't you go down to a soup kitchen in your neighbourhood and take a look at the people in line. See how many thin people there are. You know, to even suggest that there are people hungry in this country is an insult to the REAL poor of the world who are truly deserving of your attention and faux-pity and faux-concern. -- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: My objections to your posts on poverty are first that you stereotype the poor (does anyone ask you if you are spending your money on frivolous things?) and second that your definition of poverty is out of the mainstream, useless and wrong. Just to give one example, consider this, which I took from the Catholic Campaign for Human Development at http://www.nccbuscc.org/cchd/povertyusa/index.htm Since 1999, the number of poor Americans suffering from `food insecurity' and hunger has increased by 3.9 million - 2.8 million adults and more than one million children. In 2002, 34.9 million people lived in households experiencing food insecurity - that is, not enough food for basic nourishment - compared to 33.6 million in 2001 and 31 million in 1999. (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Household Food Security in the United States, 2002, October 2003.) So much for your notion that no one in this country suffers from a lack of the necessitites of life. Sorry, I don't believe it for a moment. If you and I went down to the homes of the people in the study, what do you think we'd find? I think we'd find people wasting their money on fast food or cigarettes or beer. The reality is that you can earn minimum wage in this country and have enough for basic nutritional intake. Don't believe everything you read...and start to think for yourself, feste37. Oh, and two more words for you: food stamps. Perhaps you have a rosy view of things because Arizona doesn't figure in the top ten poverty states, which are 1. Mississippi 17.3% below the poverty line 2. New Mexico 17.3% 3. Louisiana16.8% 4. District of Columbia 16.7% 4. Texas16.7% 6. Arkansas16.4% 7. Alabama 16.0% 7. Kentucky 16.0% 9. West Virginia15.8% 10. North Carolina 15.1% --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I did define it. You must have missed the post, since you didn't respond to it. I don't know offhand what the number of the post was and don't have time to go to it now. Here 'tis: 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. 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. First, thanks to Judy for finding feste37's definition. Okay. The way you define poverty is completely different from the way I define it. I do NOT define it as a relative concept which is, of course, the way it is defined by the poverty line definition. Plus, my definition has NOTHING to do with whether or not you have the same things as the majority of the people in society have. Nor does my definition include whether or not one can participate fully in that society because they don't have the things that the majority have. That's an approximation of a standard definition, I think, if I remember my social science classes from about 15 million years ago. 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.
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 11, 2006, at 9:17 AM, feste37 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. 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. An important point to make is poor is a relative thing. I live in a state where many of the people are at the poverty line. An interesting thing I have heard from numerous people who moved away, out of state, was that 'we never realized that we were poor till we moved out of state.' Within their own milieu--family, friends, social institutions, community groups, libraries with internet, church suppers, outdoors--a lot of home-spun, outdoor or community activity and interaction--these people felt they lived a very rich life. When they moved out of state they saw how people used money to entertain themselves or buy devices to do it for them. In some rural areas the institutions and activities that our grandparents would have recognized are still present. One thing that is often missed is how the social interconnections and culture were destroyed in many areas by two things: television and the automobile. People don't talk to each other, they look at the same TV. People don't talk to their neighbors, they drive somewhere. In some poorer areas, esp. rural areas, the indigenous social interconnections are still present and despite low income, these poor people lead very rich lives--in many cases much richer than those of the wealthy. A minister of my acquaintance says there are two ways to be wealthy: One is to have a lot of money, the other is to have few needs. 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/
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
On Feb 11, 2006, at 10:47 AM, authfriend wrote:A minister of my acquaintance says there are two ways to be wealthy: One is to have a lot of money, the other is to have few needs. Yep, "live simply". To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' SPONSORED LINKS Maharishi university of management Maharishi mahesh yogi Ramana maharshi YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS Visit your group "FairfieldLife" on the web. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
Complacent advice given by those who have much to those who have little, I'd say. I don't buy this romanticized poor but happy stuff. What's to be happy about when your teeth are rotting and you can't afford to go to the dentist? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 11, 2006, at 10:47 AM, authfriend wrote: A minister of my acquaintance says there are two ways to be wealthy: One is to have a lot of money, the other is to have few needs. Yep, live simply. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Complacent advice given by those who have much to those who have little, I'd say. Well, not in this case. This particular minister made a pretty good salary but gave most of it away and lived *very* simply. I don't buy this romanticized poor but happy stuff. What's to be happy about when your teeth are rotting and you can't afford to go to the dentist? That's a legitimate need, of course. If you have genuine needs like medical care and you don't have enough money to pay for them, you aren't going to be wealthy in the sense he had in mind. He was referring to needs like a fancy new car every year or a home theater system or the latest fashionable duds or eating out at expensive restaurants. What he was saying is essentially what MMY and other teachers say, although this minister was unfamiliar with the Eastern concept of enlightenment: the less attached you are to possessions, the happier you'll be. (The minister is William Sloane Coffin, by the way, a long-time crusader for peace and social justice and a champion of the poor and oppressed.) --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 11, 2006, at 10:47 AM, authfriend wrote: A minister of my acquaintance says there are two ways to be wealthy: One is to have a lot of money, the other is to have few needs. Yep, live simply. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
A minister of my acquaintance says there are two ways to be wealthy: One is to have a lot of money, the other is to have few needs. Bingo. On a recent work trip to Paris, my company canceled a meeting and I got a chance to spend a whole afternoon shopping. I returned to my hotel five hours later, empty-handed and ecstatic, because I hadn't seen even one thing I needed. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
At least this thread has accomplished one seemingly impossible thing -- getting Turquoise to agree with Judy. I wonder how long it will last . . . --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A minister of my acquaintance says there are two ways to be wealthy: One is to have a lot of money, the other is to have few needs. Bingo. On a recent work trip to Paris, my company canceled a meeting and I got a chance to spend a whole afternoon shopping. I returned to my hotel five hours later, empty-handed and ecstatic, because I hadn't seen even one thing I needed. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- Vaj wrote: There are programs that let people go to the dentist. Medicare covers dental care. If anything there are more people who have medicare/medicaid accessing healthcare than you are aware. Medicare reimburses for less than it costs to provide the services. Hence, Medicare patients must be subsidized by paying patients. This works out okay in larger hospitals that have healthy balance sheets, but falls apart with dentistry and other small private practices. Most dentists are very entrepreneurial, working alone or with a partner. They are loath to get paid less than the market rate, for demand is high. Where I live, it's not uncommon to have to wait months for a routine appointment. In the Seacoast Region of New Hamsphire a few years ago, not one dentist accepted Medicare patients, and no one speciazed in pediatric dentistry. For that reason, one of the community hospitals, Exeter Hospital, funded a pediatric dentistry practice that accepts Medicare patients and offers other means for low-income families to obtain oral health care. The hospital went one step further and invested half a million dollars in a mobile dentistry clinic. See http://tinyurl.com/7c75o. Such steps are remarkable, but hardly universal. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- 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. 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. +++ Conversely, The standard for level of cholesterol that was safe was lowered which put many more people at risk. This means more people need more drugs to prevent it. The recommended levels put you at risk, the drugs have side affects, the drug companies come out ahead and, if the program eliminates the older segments of society, it will help the social security problem. Again big business profits and we poor old schlumps go down the drain.N. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- 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. 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 It's actually the Left and social scientists who have redefined poverty. Poverty used to mean what, classically, poverty meant: the lack of the basic necessities of life. For the past 40-50 years, poverty has come to mean whether one is living above or below the poverty line. But the poverty line is a relative term which only tells us whether one's income is above or below a certain level...it tells us nothing about whether one has access to the basic necessities of life. What I have always tried to do in these discussions is to define what I mean by poverty, by saying that what I mean by it is the lack of basic necessities...and then I go on to list what those basic necessities are. So it is not a case of ME redefining poverty but of society as a whole who have done it. Believe me, poverty meant something completely different back in the '20s and '30s even in the USA! Hey, Grapes of Wrath was real poverty...and such an experience virtually does NOT exist in the US anymore... And poverty means something totally different than YOUR definition in 3rd world countries. Alot of us here have been to India because of our TM connection. Now, I have seen REAL poverty -- real lack of basic necessities of life -- in India. If you claim that our U.S. lower income people are poor what possible label would you give to the lower income people in India? (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
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Complacent advice given by those who have much to those who have little, I'd say. I don't buy this romanticized poor but happy stuff. What's to be happy about when your teeth are rotting and you can't afford to go to the dentist? Show me a person who can't afford to go to the dentist and I'll show you a person who is spending his money on beer, cigarettes or some other such thing that should NOT be a priority for consumption in his or her life. And after you weed out the 99 of 100 poor people that the above description applies to and you find the actual 1 of 100 that cannot genuinely afford the dentist, I would suggest to you that there are 1,000 dentists within a 50-mile radius of that person who will be more than happy to do pro bono work for that deserving person if they truly need it (and that's assuming there isn't a social program by the government that will pay for it). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 11, 2006, at 10:47 AM, authfriend wrote: A minister of my acquaintance says there are two ways to be wealthy: One is to have a lot of money, the other is to have few needs. Yep, live simply. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Feb 11, 2006, at 11:11 AM, feste37 wrote: Complacent advice given by those who have much to those who have little, I'd say. I don't buy this romanticized poor but happy stuff. What's to be happy about when your teeth are rotting and you can't afford to go to the dentist? There are programs that let people go to the dentist. Medicare covers dental care. Actually, I think you mean MediCAID -- a poverty program -- which is different from MediCARE which is a senior citizen health insurance program that was funded by the beneficiary from a portion of his and his employers' FICA contributions during his working years (the other portion of FICA goes towards Social Security contributions). If anything there are more people who have medicare/medicaid accessing healthcare than you are aware. And you wouldn't believe the things it covers. In many cases, a poor person with Medicare will have better, more comprehensive care than people with health insurance. It's not unusual to see obese patients who've had multiple expensive surgeries, hip and knee replacements (sometimes multiple times), heart catheterization, all sorts of expensive top-shelf testing, long lists of expensive medications (often hundreds of dollars a month)--and never see a bill. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Patrick Gillam [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- Vaj wrote: There are programs that let people go to the dentist. Medicare covers dental care. If anything there are more people who have medicare/medicaid accessing healthcare than you are aware. Medicare reimburses for less than it costs to provide the services. Hence, Medicare patients must be subsidized by paying patients. This works out okay in larger hospitals that have healthy balance sheets, but falls apart with dentistry and other small private practices. Again, we're all getting our terms mixed up: Medicaid for the poor; Medicare for the elderly (NOT a poverty program)...Medicare pays about 80% of the costs and the beneficiary must either pay the balance himself or take out gap insurance to pay the balance. Medicaid usually pays 100% of the cost. Most dentists are very entrepreneurial, working alone or with a partner. They are loath to get paid less than the market rate, for demand is high. Where I live, it's not uncommon to have to wait months for a routine appointment. In the Seacoast Region of New Hamsphire a few years ago, not one dentist accepted Medicare patients, and no one speciazed in pediatric dentistry. For that reason, one of the community hospitals, Exeter Hospital, funded a pediatric dentistry practice that accepts Medicare patients and offers other means for low-income families to obtain oral health care. The hospital went one step further and invested half a million dollars in a mobile dentistry clinic. See http://tinyurl.com/7c75o. Such steps are remarkable, but hardly universal. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- 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/ *
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ 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. It always kills me that newspeak defines a 'cut' as a reduction in the rate of growth in the budget. Just another subtlety of the age of enlightenment, I guess. JohnY 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
I knew it would get around to this pretty quickly: the poor spend their money on booze and cigarettes and on other stuff that they shouldn't buy. They should really be more responsible, just like we are (who do not have to put up with their privations). And as for the 1,000 dentists within a 50-mile radius who would be happy to treat the deserving poor for free -- that's a good one! Where on earth do you live, Shemp? Is this another Texan fantasy? And who decides who is deserving? Do YOU have to prove you are deserving when you get health care? Do YOU have to prove you don't smoke or drink? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Complacent advice given by those who have much to those who have little, I'd say. I don't buy this romanticized poor but happy stuff. What's to be happy about when your teeth are rotting and you can't afford to go to the dentist? Show me a person who can't afford to go to the dentist and I'll show you a person who is spending his money on beer, cigarettes or some other such thing that should NOT be a priority for consumption in his or her life. And after you weed out the 99 of 100 poor people that the above description applies to and you find the actual 1 of 100 that cannot genuinely afford the dentist, I would suggest to you that there are 1,000 dentists within a 50-mile radius of that person who will be more than happy to do pro bono work for that deserving person if they truly need it (and that's assuming there isn't a social program by the government that will pay for it). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 11, 2006, at 10:47 AM, authfriend wrote: A minister of my acquaintance says there are two ways to be wealthy: One is to have a lot of money, the other is to have few needs. Yep, live simply. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I knew it would get around to this pretty quickly: the poor spend their money on booze and cigarettes and on other stuff that they shouldn't buy. They should really be more responsible, just like we are (who do not have to put up with their privations). And as for the 1,000 dentists within a 50- mile radius who would be happy to treat the deserving poor for free -- that's a good one! Where on earth do you live, Shemp? Is this another Texan fantasy? And who decides who is deserving? Do YOU have to prove you are deserving when you get health care? Do YOU have to prove you don't smoke or drink? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Complacent advice given by those who have much to those who have little, I'd say. I don't buy this romanticized poor but happy stuff. What's to be happy about when your teeth are rotting and you can't afford to go to the dentist? Show me a person who can't afford to go to the dentist and I'll show you a person who is spending his money on beer, cigarettes or some other such thing that should NOT be a priority for consumption in his or her life. And after you weed out the 99 of 100 poor people that the above description applies to and you find the actual 1 of 100 that cannot genuinely afford the dentist, I would suggest to you that there are 1,000 dentists within a 50-mile radius of that person who will be more than happy to do pro bono work for that deserving person if they truly need it (and that's assuming there isn't a social program by the government that will pay for it). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 11, 2006, at 10:47 AM, authfriend wrote: A minister of my acquaintance says there are two ways to be wealthy: One is to have a lot of money, the other is to have few needs. Yep, live simply. * http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/inequality.htm 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I knew it would get around to this pretty quickly: the poor spend their money on booze and cigarettes and on other stuff that they shouldn't buy. They should really be more responsible, just like we are (who do not have to put up with their privations). And as for the 1,000 dentists within a 50- mile radius who would be happy to treat the deserving poor for free -- that's a good one! Where on earth do you live, Shemp? Is this another Texan fantasy? And who decides who is deserving? Do YOU have to prove you are deserving when you get health care? Do YOU have to prove you don't smoke or drink? Tell you what, feste37, you answer my questions about the definition of poverty and then I'll get around to answering YOUR question. And I'm not trying to just play and game of tit-for-tat with you; the definition of poverty really is at the heart of this debate. I have no idea what you mean by poverty whereas you know what I mean (because I've given you my definition). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Complacent advice given by those who have much to those who have little, I'd say. I don't buy this romanticized poor but happy stuff. What's to be happy about when your teeth are rotting and you can't afford to go to the dentist? Show me a person who can't afford to go to the dentist and I'll show you a person who is spending his money on beer, cigarettes or some other such thing that should NOT be a priority for consumption in his or her life. And after you weed out the 99 of 100 poor people that the above description applies to and you find the actual 1 of 100 that cannot genuinely afford the dentist, I would suggest to you that there are 1,000 dentists within a 50-mile radius of that person who will be more than happy to do pro bono work for that deserving person if they truly need it (and that's assuming there isn't a social program by the government that will pay for it). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 11, 2006, at 10:47 AM, authfriend wrote: A minister of my acquaintance says there are two ways to be wealthy: One is to have a lot of money, the other is to have few needs. Yep, live simply. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, bbrigante [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I knew it would get around to this pretty quickly: the poor spend their money on booze and cigarettes and on other stuff that they shouldn't buy. They should really be more responsible, just like we are (who do not have to put up with their privations). And as for the 1,000 dentists within a 50- mile radius who would be happy to treat the deserving poor for free -- that's a good one! Where on earth do you live, Shemp? Is this another Texan fantasy? And who decides who is deserving? Do YOU have to prove you are deserving when you get health care? Do YOU have to prove you don't smoke or drink? --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Complacent advice given by those who have much to those who have little, I'd say. I don't buy this romanticized poor but happy stuff. What's to be happy about when your teeth are rotting and you can't afford to go to the dentist? Show me a person who can't afford to go to the dentist and I'll show you a person who is spending his money on beer, cigarettes or some other such thing that should NOT be a priority for consumption in his or her life. And after you weed out the 99 of 100 poor people that the above description applies to and you find the actual 1 of 100 that cannot genuinely afford the dentist, I would suggest to you that there are 1,000 dentists within a 50-mile radius of that person who will be more than happy to do pro bono work for that deserving person if they truly need it (and that's assuming there isn't a social program by the government that will pay for it). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 11, 2006, at 10:47 AM, authfriend wrote: A minister of my acquaintance says there are two ways to be wealthy: One is to have a lot of money, the other is to have few needs. Yep, live simply. * http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/inequality.htm The Gini Ratio cited above measures income inequality. This, again, is a measurement, like the poverty line that has NOTHING to do with measuring true poverty. All it does it measure the income levels between people in a society. Who cares if Bill Gates earns $100 million a year and Joe Six-Pack earns $2,000 as long as Joe has access to all the basic necessities of life? On a another point: if I understand the Gini Ratio correctly (by the way, it reminds me of the way the TMO used to bastardize scientific data and skewer it in a misrepresentative way) it seems to say that during the Clinton years the inequality was greatest (which would make sense because that is when the stock market was at its peak). 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
I did define it. You must have missed the post, since you didn't respond to it. I don't know offhand what the number of the post was and don't have time to go to it now. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I knew it would get around to this pretty quickly: the poor spend their money on booze and cigarettes and on other stuff that they shouldn't buy. They should really be more responsible, just like we are (who do not have to put up with their privations). And as for the 1,000 dentists within a 50- mile radius who would be happy to treat the deserving poor for free -- that's a good one! Where on earth do you live, Shemp? Is this another Texan fantasy? And who decides who is deserving? Do YOU have to prove you are deserving when you get health care? Do YOU have to prove you don't smoke or drink? Tell you what, feste37, you answer my questions about the definition of poverty and then I'll get around to answering YOUR question. And I'm not trying to just play and game of tit-for-tat with you; the definition of poverty really is at the heart of this debate. I have no idea what you mean by poverty whereas you know what I mean (because I've given you my definition). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Complacent advice given by those who have much to those who have little, I'd say. I don't buy this romanticized poor but happy stuff. What's to be happy about when your teeth are rotting and you can't afford to go to the dentist? Show me a person who can't afford to go to the dentist and I'll show you a person who is spending his money on beer, cigarettes or some other such thing that should NOT be a priority for consumption in his or her life. And after you weed out the 99 of 100 poor people that the above description applies to and you find the actual 1 of 100 that cannot genuinely afford the dentist, I would suggest to you that there are 1,000 dentists within a 50-mile radius of that person who will be more than happy to do pro bono work for that deserving person if they truly need it (and that's assuming there isn't a social program by the government that will pay for it). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 11, 2006, at 10:47 AM, authfriend wrote: A minister of my acquaintance says there are two ways to be wealthy: One is to have a lot of money, the other is to have few needs. Yep, live simply. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I did define it. You must have missed the post, since you didn't respond to it. I don't know offhand what the number of the post was and don't have time to go to it now. Here 'tis: 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. 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. That's an approximation of a standard definition, I think, if I remember my social science classes from about 15 million years ago. 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. 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. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I knew it would get around to this pretty quickly: the poor spend their money on booze and cigarettes and on other stuff that they shouldn't buy. They should really be more responsible, just like we are (who do not have to put up with their privations). And as for the 1,000 dentists within a 50- mile radius who would be happy to treat the deserving poor for free -- that's a good one! Where on earth do you live, Shemp? Is this another Texan fantasy? And who decides who is deserving? Do YOU have to prove you are deserving when you get health care? Do YOU have to prove you don't smoke or drink? Tell you what, feste37, you answer my questions about the definition of poverty and then I'll get around to answering YOUR question. And I'm not trying to just play and game of tit-for-tat with you; the definition of poverty really is at the heart of this debate. I have no idea what you mean by poverty whereas you know what I mean (because I've given you my definition). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Complacent advice given by those who have much to those who have little, I'd say. I don't buy this romanticized poor but happy stuff. What's to be happy about when your teeth are rotting and you can't afford to go to the dentist? Show me a person who can't afford to go to the dentist and I'll show you a person who is spending his money on beer, cigarettes or some other such thing that should NOT be a priority for consumption in his or her life. And after you weed out the 99 of 100 poor people that the above description applies to and you find the actual 1 of 100 that cannot genuinely afford the dentist, I would suggest to you that there are 1,000 dentists within a 50-mile radius of that person who will be more than happy to do pro bono work for that deserving person if they truly need it (and that's assuming there isn't a social program by the government that will pay for it). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 11, 2006, at 10:47 AM, authfriend wrote: A minister of my acquaintance says there are two ways to be wealthy: One is to have a lot of money, the other is to have few needs. Yep, live simply. 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/
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I did define it. You must have missed the post, since you didn't respond to it. I don't know offhand what the number of the post was and don't have time to go to it now. Here 'tis: 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. 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. First, thanks to Judy for finding feste37's definition. Okay. The way you define poverty is completely different from the way I define it. I do NOT define it as a relative concept which is, of course, the way it is defined by the poverty line definition. Plus, my definition has NOTHING to do with whether or not you have the same things as the majority of the people in society have. Nor does my definition include whether or not one can participate fully in that society because they don't have the things that the majority have. That's an approximation of a standard definition, I think, if I remember my social science classes from about 15 million years ago. 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. 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. ...and I contend that there is no one that the above applies to in America...and that is why there are no poor people. There are social programs -- government or otherwise -- that will take care of those essential needs. Now I'm going to go back and answer the questions you asked me that I haven't yet responded to. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: I knew it would get around to this pretty quickly: the poor spend their money on booze and cigarettes and on other stuff that they shouldn't buy. They should really be more responsible, just like we are (who do not have to put up with their privations). And as for the 1,000 dentists within a 50- mile radius who would be happy to treat the deserving poor for free -- that's a good one! Where on earth do you live, Shemp? Is this another Texan fantasy? And who decides who is deserving? Do YOU have to prove you are deserving when you get health care? Do YOU have to prove you don't smoke or drink? Tell you what, feste37, you answer my questions about the definition of poverty and then I'll get around to answering YOUR question. And I'm not trying to just play and game of tit-for-tat with you; the definition of poverty really is at the heart of this debate. I have no idea what you mean by poverty whereas you know what I mean (because I've given you my definition). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Complacent advice given by those who have much to those who have little, I'd say. I don't buy this romanticized poor but happy stuff. What's to be happy about when your teeth are rotting and you can't afford to go to the dentist? Show me a person who can't afford to go to the dentist and I'll show you a person who is spending his money on beer, cigarettes or some other such thing that should NOT be a priority for consumption in his or her life. And after you weed out the 99 of 100 poor people that the above description applies to and you find the actual 1 of 100 that cannot genuinely afford the dentist, I would suggest to you that there are 1,000 dentists within a 50-mile radius of that person who will be more than happy to do pro bono work for that deserving person if they truly need it (and that's assuming there isn't a social program by the government that will pay for it). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 11, 2006, at 10:47 AM, authfriend wrote: A minister of my acquaintance says there are two ways to be wealthy: One is to have a lot of money, the other is to have few
[FairfieldLife] Re: more on poverty, should anyone be interested
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I knew it would get around to this pretty quickly: the poor spend their money on booze and cigarettes and on other stuff that they shouldn't buy. They should really be more responsible, just like we are (who do not have to put up with their privations). And as for the 1,000 dentists within a 50- mile radius who would be happy to treat the deserving poor for free -- that's a good one! Where on earth do you live, Shemp? Arizona. Is this another Texan fantasy? I've only been to Texas twice: once when I drove through the panhandle and then another time for a week when I was in Harlingen, Texas. And who decides who is deserving? Deserving would be someone who is NOT smoking cigarettes or drinking or otherwise wasting their money on frivolous things. Do YOU have to prove you are deserving when you get health care? No, because I pay my premiums. As for people who get Medicaid, they DO have to prove they are deserving of the program by showing what their income and net worth. If Bill Gates applies for Medicaid, he will be discriminated against and turned away because he has too much income and net worth to qualify for it (economic status is not a prohibited basis of discrimination for government programs, whereas bases such as race or gender are). Do YOU have to prove you don't smoke or drink? Actually, YES I did because I am not on a group health plan (I'm self-employed and both drinking and smoking ARE used as criteria to determine the underwriting for acceptance to AND the table-rating for health insurance. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, shempmcgurk shempmcgurk@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, feste37 feste37@ wrote: Complacent advice given by those who have much to those who have little, I'd say. I don't buy this romanticized poor but happy stuff. What's to be happy about when your teeth are rotting and you can't afford to go to the dentist? Show me a person who can't afford to go to the dentist and I'll show you a person who is spending his money on beer, cigarettes or some other such thing that should NOT be a priority for consumption in his or her life. And after you weed out the 99 of 100 poor people that the above description applies to and you find the actual 1 of 100 that cannot genuinely afford the dentist, I would suggest to you that there are 1,000 dentists within a 50-mile radius of that person who will be more than happy to do pro bono work for that deserving person if they truly need it (and that's assuming there isn't a social program by the government that will pay for it). --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj vajranatha@ wrote: On Feb 11, 2006, at 10:47 AM, authfriend wrote: A minister of my acquaintance says there are two ways to be wealthy: One is to have a lot of money, the other is to have few needs. Yep, live simply. 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/
