Re: interesting little tidbit about our cheap food

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Irene Musiol " <irene@...>

> You are very lucky to have had a healthy grandmother.

" Very lucky " suggests that it is an unusual state of affairs, which I do

not think it is.

> Mine had alzheimers.

> We took care of her.

How old were you, and how old was she? The average age of onset for AD

is over 70, at which point most people do not have very young

grandchildren. There is a genetic mutation which results in early onset,

but it's quite rare.

[Guest guest]

Personally I think it is a bigger streatch to assume most people will have

a grandparent available and able to raise children. But I don't have

statistics for that. I assume you don't either.

Irene

At 08:55 AM 12/2/03, you wrote:

>----- Original Message -----

>From: " Irene Musiol " <irene@...>

> > You are very lucky to have had a healthy grandmother.

>

> " Very lucky " suggests that it is an unusual state of affairs, which I do

>not think it is.

>

> > Mine had alzheimers.

> > We took care of her.

>

>How old were you, and how old was she? The average age of onset for AD

>is over 70, at which point most people do not have very young

>grandchildren. There is a genetic mutation which results in early onset,

>but it's quite rare.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/2/03 5:01:50 PM Eastern Standard Time,

filippa91@... writes:

> And what if you don't live in the same town/city as your grandparents.

> I've never lived near/with mine. We went to daycare. In China, according to

my

> Chinese students, most mothers work and the grandparents take care of the

> grandchildren.

Filippa--

This is my point. *Why* don't people live near their parents? If they can

afford the luxury, and want to live wherever they want, fine. But if families

could benefit from sticking together and they choose not to, that represents

some kind of basic dysfunction.

I don't believe that every family should be out for themselves-- I'm saying

that if we want to make our society more cooperative rather than individualist,

it would be preposterous to start at the top and work our way down; rather,

we should start be cooperating at the level of the individual and family, and

IF government has to get involved, involve it at the lowest level possible, and

work our way up.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>You behaved exactly the same as what? You mean you worked for your money

>like me instead of getting it in an envelope from your parents?

>

>Chris

I worked for my money. I lived off $100 a month, of which $75 went for rent.

I figured anyone who couldn't do that was a whiner. I never considered

the whole picture ... like, how folks in other countries went to

school, how big is the " whole pie " that all us poor folks were sharing

and who was eating the rest of the pie.

Later I worked in a job

for years, really really hard and saving and scrimping, never considering

that *some* jobs pay a whole lot more. It wasn't minimum wage

work, by any means, but it didn't pay the bills, and I tell you,

I am GOOD at shopping wisely. When we finally had one big

medical problem -- my spouse was hit by a car and couldn't

work for a year -- we hit the skids big time. It was pure luck

on our part that we happened to have medical insurance, or

we would have lost the house too.

When I finally broke down from overwork, my sister took

me aside and with some good counselling I got into

another field. Now you can say " Heidi, you were just being

stupid! " -- to which I say, yes, I was! And a whole lot of other

folks were with me in the same boat, and are still, I think.

My safety net was, as you say, my family, which is

still reasonable functional. Some folks aren't so lucky,

or their own families are on the skids too.

I also lived in Europe and saw their version of

a " just society " . And I have friends in Canada and Denmark

and Netherlands and hear their versions too.

So now I don't believe in the " every man for himself "

or " every family for itself " philosophy, though I know

it is the prevalent one in the US. I get sad whenever I

see someone else going through this stuff ... our local

organic farmer had a heart attack last week, no insurance.

While the CEO's make 200 million a year and talk show

hosts make 60 million a year and the richest 5% own

95% of the income and we'll spend 100 billion in Iraq

and more on subsidies for corporations. But the farmer

may lose his farm. I'm not against hard work ... but

the situation is just *slightly* unbalanced.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Again, I'm referring to the total amount of wealth in the nation. It has a

>way of spreading around. Macrosoft might lower their prices a bit, or they

>might make more and better software. Maybe they invest it, which increases

>worker productivity. Or maybe they'll throw a bone to the Keynesians and

>spend it on something frivolous.

The total amount spreads around, but more and more of it is

going into the pockets of the very upper echelon. This is a newer

development ... the rich were always richer, but now they

are really hogging a bigger piece of the pie (in banks in

the Bahamas, from the sounds of it).

Societies historically do the best when there is a strong

middle class, which is where the strength of the society

comes from. The middle class was strongest in the 50's

and 60's, now society is polarizing. You can say you don't

like regulation, but a lot of this polarizing is BECAUSE

of regulations that are in favor of monopolies, that

allow corporations to skip paying taxes, allow folks

on the boards of directors of those companies

to work on the boards that are supposed to regulate

those companies. We don't really need new regulations,

but we should start enforcing some of the traditional

ones.

Concentrating on how hard the folks at the bottom

work, or don't work, misses the point. We are all

competing for a smaller and smaller pie. The folks

at the top don't all work hard ... shoot, their kids are

out taking drugs and making news ala Paris Hilton

and the Bush daughters.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/2/03 7:07:39 PM Eastern Standard Time,

filippa91@... writes:

> Women finally get free of their kids after 20 years of raising them, then

> they have to do it all over again with their grandkids. Not all women want

> that life. I don't think there's one easy answer that works for everyone.

So it comes down to the choices you make. I'm not saying that every family

should has a moral imperitive to do things a certain way or live in a certain

town, etc. The question was about the ability to raise children within the

family if both parents have to work. It IS possible if the family puts the

family first, and functions as a healthy family. And the implication was that

if

it wasn't possible, the system had to be changed in some way to make it

possible for one person to earn a family's income, presumably through some sort

of

taxation and redistribution or minimum wage change, or combination thereof.

In that case, other people that did not make the choice to have the kids, and

live the life they chose are made to sacrifice for others choices, meanwhile,

the folks who DID make the choice insist on the right to feel dignified and

free and do what they want to do. Isn't that a misplacement of responsibility?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/2/03 8:01:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, irene@...

writes:

> Usually it is jobs that take people away. The classic example is military

> families. But very often people leave their home town because they can't

> find work there.

But we were talking about people dealing with poor jobs that are minimum wage

or near it. If you're moving to find a better job, the job must be at least

half-decent, or it wouldn't be worth moving for.

But thanks to all for the descriptions, as I was initially wondering how

people end up not living near family, not just making a political point. I

realize I am lucky. My grandparents are extremely religious and selfless, so

that

made for a tight-knit family. Other kids I grew up with had grandparents who

had passed away, but most had two sets of grandparents unlike me, which made up

for it.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Its not as simple as planning for your parents to take care of your

children. Having children at 35 say, when Mom had you at 30 for example.My

Mom worked before oldest went to school. Was making $1.45 hr. full time,

paying sitter $15 a week. There was no line item then on tax forms for

child care deduction then. Mom was always eager to have her on the

weekends. Youngest before school had Dad, on crutches as he was recovering

from getting hit in an accident. Mom had just retired, been diagnosed with

heart disease one year, diabetes the next. Mom would love to watch great

grandson, the oldest's son but she's now in a wheelchair, a multiple

diabetic amputee. My point, I guess is elderly are living longer but the

quality of life is more likely to be compromised imo because of all the

changes in their diets during their lifetime (more than any other part of

human history) and the medical technology invented in the same time to

prolong life.

Wanita

At 07:39 AM 12/2/2003 -0800, you wrote:

>You are very lucky to have had a healthy grandmother. Mine had alzheimers.

>We took care of her.

>Irene

>

>At 02:04 PM 12/1/03, you wrote:

>>In a message dated 11/30/03 8:10:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, irene@...

>>writes:

>>

>> > Working

>> >

>> > At 04:53 PM 11/30/03, you wrote:

>> > >Where are all

>> > >the grandparents and aunts and uncles and cousins?

>>

>>Hmm... most grandparents retire at some point, and fulfill their historical

>>role of helping the next generation raise children. My grandmother played a

>>big role in raising me. She started working as a lunch lady and crossing

>>guard

>>when I started going to school, which helped out a lot, but quite obviously

>>the kids being raised my family was more important than anyone having extra

>>spending money.

>>

>>Even if everyone has to work, there's no reason everyone has to work the

same

>>shift. There are roughly three shifts in a day, and a family that is

>>moderately functional should be able to pull something off so that the

>>kids are

>>mostly or completely raised by family. If they don't want to do that,

>>then if the

>>fundamental familial unit lacks any remote sense of cooperation, how can you

>>expect us to have healthy " cooperativity " at the government level? The idea

>>that we should become more communitarian through the federal government

>>because

>>we are incompetent at doing so at the community and even family level is

>>backwards. Families should be functional cooperative units first, then

>>we'll see

>>what tasks are left undone for the government.

>>

>>Chris

>>

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

Personally I think it is a bigger streatch to assume most people will have

a grandparent available and able to raise children. But I don't have

statistics for that. I assume you don't either.

Irene

-----------------------------

And what if you don't live in the same town/city as your grandparents. I've

never lived near/with mine. We went to daycare. In China, according to my

Chinese students, most mothers work and the grandparents take care of the

grandchildren.

Filippa

[Guest guest]

" This is my point. *Why* don't people live near their parents? If they can

afford the luxury, and want to live wherever they want, fine. But if families

could benefit from sticking together and they choose not to, that represents

some kind of basic dysfunction. " (Chris)

------------------------------------

I don't think you can assume it's about living where you want. Often it's

about living where you can get a job. So then there's the option of bringing the

grandparents to live with you but then they become displaced people - losing

their community that they've perhaps always lived in.

For my father, it was about furthering his career. We went where the best

opportunities for his career were and that meant overseas as well. My dad

probably would have gone out of his mind if he had to stay in his little town

and be a school teacher all his life - he just wasn't cut out for it. I don't

know that his way was best for us and a lot of the time he put his career before

us. I envy people who have grown up in the same town and had a great

relationship with their extended family. But that doesn't work if it's a really

dysfunctional family - and there are a lot of those.

My sister was forced to go out to work when her second child was a baby. They

paid my mother pittance to do childcare and other domestic work. She needed the

money, they needed the domestic help but couldn't afford the going rates. As

much as she loves her grandkids, she hated being the domestic help. She felt

that she had done her stint of childraising, domestics and taking care of

people. She felt she had reached a time of life when she wanted to do her own

thing and not look after house and children. She got really resentful at times.

I can understand that. She stuck it out though and I'm sure the grandkids have

benefited from being in her care rather than a babysitter. Luckily their

circumstances have changed and she's been released from that burden.

Women finally get free of their kids after 20 years of raising them, then they

have to do it all over again with their grandkids. Not all women want that life.

I don't think there's one easy answer that works for everyone.

Filippa

[Guest guest]

Usually it is jobs that take people away. The classic example is military

families. But very often people leave their home town because they can't

find work there.

Irene

At 02:22 PM 12/2/03, you wrote:

>This is my point. *Why* don't people live near their parents? If they can

>afford the luxury, and want to live wherever they want, fine. But if

>families

>could benefit from sticking together and they choose not to, that represents

>some kind of basic dysfunction.

[Guest guest]

Quoting ChrisMasterjohn@...:

> I don't believe that every family should be out for themselves-- I'm

> saying

> that if we want to make our society more cooperative rather than

> individualist,

> it would be preposterous to start at the top and work our way down;

> rather,

> we should start be cooperating at the level of the individual and family,

> and

> IF government has to get involved, involve it at the lowest level

> possible, and

> work our way up.

I don't think that individualism and cooperation are necessarily opposed to

one another. In fact, I think that they go hand in hand. The individualist

sees the individual and his rights as sacrosanct, so when he needs the help

of others to accomplish his goals, he seeks to enlist their aid through

genuine voluntary cooperation in ways that benefit all parties concerned.

The market economy is a truly wondrous demonstration of individualist

cooperation on a grand scale. In contrast, the collectivist seeks to impose

his grand schemes upon others from above. This forced " cooperation " is a

sham.

--

Berg

bberg@...

[Guest guest]

>filippa91@... writes:

>

> In China, according to my

>> Chinese students, most mothers work and the grandparents take care of the

>> grandchildren.

In most Native American cultures either grandparents totally raised the

child or did the majority of the raising of the grandchildren because it

was believed somewhat that the parents did not have the wisdom to raise the

child properly. Wondering how that fits in with the parents being raised by

their parent's parents. Also it was needed because out of respect for age.

The elders were retired from hunting and gathering the food, the parents

did it to feed their children, parents, extended family, those without

family to hunt and gather for them.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

<<Personally I think it is a bigger streatch to assume most people will have

a grandparent available and able to raise children. But I don't have

statistics for that. I assume you don't either.

Irene>>

No " stats " here just my own upbringing. Parents divorced when i was 8.

Truly no one was home. Mother gone working at a minimum wage job during the

day and tending bar at night (there is more to this but not now) Father got

me on weekends and was a nasty mean alcoholic. Grandparents on either side

did not live local and no other relatives at all. As far as a relative

taking care of the kids my mother didn't want to take care of us and her

motto for my older sisters was " you have em you take care of um " . I was a

latch key kid when i was 8 way back in 1960. Mother said that no one could

take me or my sisters as we had food and shelter : ) So whoever says that

grandma or auntie will fill the roll may not have a clue and then who

decided that " Auntie " should or would want to fill this roll????

Kathy A

[Guest guest]

Still holds true. Many people without job prospects join the military. The

enlisted ranks get paid quite poorly. Some even qualify for food stamps.

Irene

At 05:54 PM 12/2/03, you wrote:

>In a message dated 12/2/03 8:01:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, irene@...

>writes:

>

> > Usually it is jobs that take people away. The classic example is military

> > families. But very often people leave their home town because they can't

> > find work there.

>

>But we were talking about people dealing with poor jobs that are minimum wage

>or near it. If you're moving to find a better job, the job must be at least

>half-decent, or it wouldn't be worth moving for.

>

>But thanks to all for the descriptions, as I was initially wondering how

>people end up not living near family, not just making a political point. I

>realize I am lucky. My grandparents are extremely religious and selfless,

>so that

>made for a tight-knit family. Other kids I grew up with had grandparents who

>had passed away, but most had two sets of grandparents unlike me, which

>made up

>for it.

>

>Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...>

> So now I don't believe in the " every man for himself "

> or " every family for itself " philosophy,

This is a strawman and a perversion of free-market thought. No one here

is advocating any such thing. Historically, there have always been

numerous institutions available to help the needy through voluntary

cooperation--churches, community groups, extended family, private

charities, etc. These are good, not only because they help the poor to

turn their lives around and become independent, productive members of

society, but also because they help to build strong communities in which

people trust and rely on one another. The beneficiaries of voluntary

charity feel a genuine sense of gratitude and goodwill towards their

benefactors.

Government programs tear these institutions asunder. High taxes reduce

charitable donations. The Great Society welfare programs have devastated

poor, urban families and created a generation of fatherless children and

an endless cycle of poverty and dependence. Rather than promoting

goodwill and strong community, government programs create only

resentment and a sense of entitlement. I resent welfare recipients

because they steal my money. They resent me because they think I'm

taking their share of the mythical economic pie. Who here has ever seen

a welfare recipient express gratitude to a taxpayer?

> though I know it is the prevalent one in the US.

Where do you get this idea?

> While the CEO's make 200 million a year

A good CEO is worth that much. A bad CEO...well...you know what they say

about a fool and his money, and there's no bigger fool than one willing

to pay that much to a bad CEO.

> and talk show hosts make 60 million a year

If people didn't watch their shows, they wouldn't make that much money.

> and the richest 5% own 95% of the income

Aside from being nonsensical (the term " rich " refers to wealth, not to

income, and the idea of " owning " income seems a bit odd), this just

isn't true. The top 5% of income earners make about 32% of the total

income. The richest 5% have about 69% of the wealth.

> and we'll spend 100 billion in Iraq

> and more on subsidies for corporations.

I'm all for cutting back on subsidies, regardless of whether they're

going to multinational corporations or unwed mothers.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " Heidi Schuppenhauer " <heidis@...>

> >Again, I'm referring to the total amount of wealth in the nation. It

has a

> >way of spreading around. Macrosoft might lower their prices a bit, or

they

> >might make more and better software. Maybe they invest it, which

increases

> >worker productivity. Or maybe they'll throw a bone to the Keynesians

and

> >spend it on something frivolous.

>

> The total amount spreads around, but more and more of it is

> going into the pockets of the very upper echelon. This is a newer

> development ...

Of course it is. Until Reagan pushed through his tax cuts, the top

marginal tax rates were absurdly high (70%, and at one point they were

as high as 93%), and they made it very difficult for anyone to break

into the upper class.

> the rich were always richer, but now they

> are really hogging a bigger piece of the pie (in banks in

> the Bahamas, from the sounds of it).

There is no pie. It's a leftist myth which bears no resemblance

whatsoever to the way the economy actually works. One of the most

fundamental principles of economics is that the economy isn't a zero-sum

game. Wealth isn't just divvied up--it's created. If someone invents

some great new product and makes billions of dollars from it, he hasn't

just taken our share of the pie--he's made us all richer. That was the

entire point of my example--by hiring an Indian programmer to do the

same job for 60% less, Macrosoft makes the " pie " $30,000 bigger, and,

try as they might, they can't keep it all for themselves.

> Societies historically do the best when there is a strong

> middle class, which is where the strength of the society

> comes from.

What does that mean? What is a strong middle class? And how do you know

that you don't have it backwards? Is it not more reasonable to suppose

that prosperous societies tend to give rise to large middle classes, or

that societies with free economies tend to give rise to prosperity and

large middle classes? If the middle classes are what cause prosperity,

then where do they come from? Besides, there is no historical model to

which the modern-day US can be compared. Even our poor are quite well

off by historical standards. What other society has had morbidly obese

poor people?

Another thing that you're overlooking is the fact that there is

tremendous social value in having a large amount of wealth concentrated

in the hands of the upper classes. The single most powerful determinant

of real income, particularly for the lower and middle classes, is the

capital-to-labor ratio. In layman's terms, what this means is that for

real wages to rise, we have to have more savings and investment. Now, as

a rule, rich people tend to save and invest a larger percentage of their

income than the poor. That's why they're rich. If we were to take all

the wealth in the country and distribute it equally among the

population, it would be an unmitigated disaster. Some people would have

the good sense to save the money, but the majority would consume it

fairly quickly. This would result in a severe drop in the

capital-to-labor ratio, and real income would plummet.

> The middle class was strongest in the 50's

> and 60's, now society is polarizing.

Can you provide the statistics to back this up? It's not inconceivable,

given the draconian regulations and high levels of government spending

which have burdened the US for the past several decades, but I don't

believe that it's true.

> You can say you don't

> like regulation, but a lot of this polarizing is BECAUSE

> of regulations that are in favor of monopolies,

No argument there. I'm all for eliminating true (that is,

government-enforced) monopolies.

> that allow corporations to skip paying taxes

IMO, everyone has a moral obligation to pay as little in taxes as he

legally can, and to pay even less if he can get away with it safely.

Anyway, corporations don't pay taxes. People do.

> We don't really need new regulations,

> but we should start enforcing some of the traditional

> ones.

Or, even better, repealing them.

> Concentrating on how hard the folks at the bottom

> work, or don't work, misses the point. We are all

> competing for a smaller and smaller pie.

No we're not. Now you're just making stuff up.

> The folks at the top don't all work hard ...

Most do.

> shoot, their kids are

> out taking drugs and making news ala Paris Hilton

> and the Bush daughters.

First, the Bush daughters haven't really done anything that bad, as far

as I know. I didn't drink in college, but I suspect that I may have been

the only one. Second, what does the behavior of children have to do with

how hard their parents work? Maybe they act up because their parents are

always busy working.

[Guest guest]

,

I don't know where you live, but here in New York healthcare costs are out of

control. If you don't have a job that comes with insurance (often the case

these days) and you aren't below the poverty line, the MINIMUM you can pay for

health insurance for ONE PERSON is $278 per month. You cannot buy catastrophic

insurance here; it just doesn't exist. Since I generally don't go to doctors

(except for a yearly physical and gyn. exam), I was basically paying that high

premium in the event that I was hit by a bus.

How much can it cost to get insurance to cover just the really expensive

things and pay the rest out of pocket? Assuming, of course, that that

sort of insurance policy is even legal.

[Guest guest]

Kathy wrote: " So whoever says that

grandma or auntie will fill the roll may not have a clue and then who

decided that " Auntie " should or would want to fill this roll???? "

~~~~~ Kathy,

I think you're referring to me, although this somewhat misrepresents what I

said. What I said was to *ask* why this was NOT occurring.

I'm perfectly aware that not everyone has perfect family life. If I can remind

you folks, I've never known my father, so where the heck was he? You're

question " why should 'auntie' care " is similar but not equivalent to why should

my father have stuck around. Obviously he didn't, but someone with reasonable

morals gives a shit about the people around them, especially their family and

their offspring.

The friends I grew up with didn't have perfect family life. I know all about

divorce and I know all about alcoholism and have had to deal first-hand with its

effects on family.

But for the fiftieth time, if we morally liberate grandma and auntie to live the

life *they* want to live without regard to their family's needs or in grandma's

case the consequences of their own actions (you can't expect to be a parent

without being a grandparent), how can we possibly morally require the rest of

society to take responsibility? Does no one else see the inconsistency here???

Chris

[Guest guest]

Kathy wrote: " So whoever says that

grandma or auntie will fill the roll may not have a clue and then who

decided that " Auntie " should or would want to fill this roll???? "

~~~~~ Kathy,

I think you're referring to me, although this somewhat misrepresents what I

said. What I said was to *ask* why this was NOT occurring.

I'm perfectly aware that not everyone has perfect family life. If I can remind

you folks, I've never known my father, so where the heck was he? You're

question " why should 'auntie' care " is similar but not equivalent to why should

my father have stuck around. Obviously he didn't, but someone with reasonable

morals gives a shit about the people around them, especially their family and

their offspring.

The friends I grew up with didn't have perfect family life. I know all about

divorce and I know all about alcoholism and have had to deal first-hand with its

effects on family.

But for the fiftieth time, if we morally liberate grandma and auntie to live the

life *they* want to live without regard to their family's needs or in grandma's

case the consequences of their own actions (you can't expect to be a parent

without being a grandparent), how can we possibly morally require the rest of

society to take responsibility? Does no one else see the inconsistency here???

Chris

[Guest guest]

This totally ignores the problems facing the country that created the Great

Society welfare programs. There was a huge amount of povery and

devestation. There were private charities but they just couldn't keep up.

And the welfare programs do more than just rescue people in need. They

provide a lower bound to how far down companies can drive wages. That was

the big reason corporations hated the welfare program and have been

fighting them ever since. Without a minimum wage or social welfare, wages

can go to obscenely low levels because there will be nowhere else for some

people to go. Of course now with GATT and NAFTA corporations can go

anywhere in the world and pay $0.27 per hour or even per day. I guess they

got around that problem.

Of course, It is not really about whether or not we have big governement.

That is just hype. Unless you are advocating anarchy we will have

government. It is what kind of policy will we have and what are the

priorities. The current belief is that it is most important to protect

corporate profits and that is the road to prosperity. The more money they

make the more jobs and ivestment etc. That seems to me, to be driving us

to a third world economy. I personally believe that protecting the lives

of families is the first priority and the rest will follow. By protecting

families, I mean have a living minimum wage (which probably means doubling

it) and a humane social welfare system. In this way corporations can make

as much money as they want but not at the expense of driving wages down

which is what most of the boom in the 80's and 90's was about. The higher

the minimum wage is the less people will need the safety net thereby

lowering the pressure to have more taxes. Also the more money people have,

the more they buy which stimulates the economy.

Much of the debate centers on whether or not people in dire straites should

be able to " make it " . But there is another argument that you rarely hear.

And should a corporation be able to pay decent wages and benefits and still

" make it " . If not then perhaps it should have its charter revoked and a

more efficient company should take its place. One that can provide decent

jobs without going oversees and still make a profit. And the big question

is, which policy makes for an overall better prosperity. Because it is not

big or small government. It is which policy the goverment takes. Of course

there will always be room for charity.

Irene

At 01:05 AM 12/3/03, you wrote:

>Government programs tear these institutions asunder. High taxes reduce

>charitable donations. The Great Society welfare programs have devastated

>poor, urban families and created a generation of fatherless children and

>an endless cycle of poverty and dependence. Rather than promoting

>goodwill and strong community, government programs create only

>resentment and a sense of entitlement. I resent welfare recipients

>because they steal my money. They resent me because they think I'm

>taking their share of the mythical economic pie. Who here has ever seen

>a welfare recipient express gratitude to a taxpayer?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/3/03 12:40:49 AM Eastern Standard Time, irene@...

writes:

> Still holds true. Many people without job prospects join the military. The

> enlisted ranks get paid quite poorly. Some even qualify for food stamps.

>

I don't know what you're saying. I agree the military vastly underpays its

folks, though its a perfect opportunity for advancement if you have any

ambition. But it seems totally aside the point. I don't think anyone gets

pregnant

in the military too often, and it's not a permanent move, but a temporary one.

But it comes down to this: If you decide to move away from your family, then

you are making a choice to move away because the job offers some greater

opportunity that outweighs the benefits of living near your family. If it

doesn't,

it wasn't a very sensible choice.

Chris

> Irene

>

> At 05:54 PM 12/2/03, you wrote:

> >In a message dated 12/2/03 8:01:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, irene@...

> >writes:

> >

> >>Usually it is jobs that take people away. The classic example is military

> >>families. But very often people leave their home town because they can't

> >>find work there.

> >

> >But we were talking about people dealing with poor jobs that are minimum

> wage

> >or near it. If you're moving to find a better job, the job must be at

> least

> >half-decent, or it wouldn't be worth moving for.

> >

> >But thanks to all for the descriptions, as I was initially wondering how

> >people end up not living near family, not just making a political point. I

> >realize I am lucky. My grandparents are extremely religious and selfless,

> >so that

> >made for a tight-knit family. Other kids I grew up with had grandparents

> who

> >had passed away, but most had two sets of grandparents unlike me, which

> >made up

> >for it.

> >

> >Chris

>

" To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are

to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and

servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore

Roosevelt

[Guest guest]

>Rather than promoting

>goodwill and strong community, government programs create only

>resentment and a sense of entitlement. I resent welfare recipients

>because they steal my money. They resent me because they think I'm

>taking their share of the mythical economic pie. Who here has ever seen

>a welfare recipient express gratitude to a taxpayer?

Well, that's a strawman argument too. Most of the programs

that are being cut are not " welfare " . Most of the money actually

goes to middle class folks, and it is for programs like college

loans and help to disadvantaged kids. My son, for example, gets

a therapist I could in no way afford. Many of us got college loans.

Money also goes to emergency rooms to subsidize hospitals

for treatment they give to folks who can't afford to pay for it.

Like Moms having babies with no insurance. It goes to help

folks with mental problems and to drug rehab programs.

A lot of these programs can't really be administered will

by small groups.

" Welfare " was mainly intended as a safety net for mothers with

kids, who had no other help. It's become something to bash

for lots of politicians and talk show hosts. It is poorly

administered, esp. if Mom's have to put their kids in daycare

to work at lowpaying jobs.

> > though I know it is the prevalent one in the US.

>

>Where do you get this idea?

From talking to people and listening to analysts.

Actually there are two camps, but the US has always

been more a " cowboy " than a " community " philosophy.

Even our " community " groups usually reflect some

special interest group.

>> While the CEO's make 200 million a year

>

>A good CEO is worth that much. A bad CEO...well...you know what they say

>about a fool and his money, and there's no bigger fool than one willing

>to pay that much to a bad CEO.

So they say. But ARE they worth that much, or do they

just vote themselves that much money? I mean,

it seems like there is a bunch of folks voting

themselves raises.

But whether or not they are worth it, the question remains

what KIND of society we want. The current system is

one where the levels are stratifying. 1/4 of the people

are in low paying jobs, and those jobs pay 37% of what the

higher paying jobs pay. In some other countries, the lowest

paying jobs pay 60%. So the lower paid people can afford

and do get, health care, dental care, a decent place to live.

While in our country families are ending up on the street

and having babies in emergency rooms. Is that the society

you WANT?

> > and talk show hosts make 60 million a year

>

>If people didn't watch their shows, they wouldn't make that much money.

That's the standard argument. I really don't CARE that they make

that much, I just think it's absurd when their audience has

no health care, so say " we can't afford " health care.

Aside from being nonsensical (the term " rich " refers to wealth, not to

>income, and the idea of " owning " income seems a bit odd), this just

>isn't true. The top 5% of income earners make about 32% of the total

>income. The richest 5% have about 69% of the wealth.

Once you own that much, the term " income " is kind

of meaningless. Esp. since a lot of it is likely in

offshore accounts. I'd have to look up the numbers, but 69%

is still absurd. By all accounts the number is growing.

> > and we'll spend 100 billion in Iraq

>> and more on subsidies for corporations.

>

>I'm all for cutting back on subsidies, regardless of whether they're

>going to multinational corporations or unwed mothers.

How about wed mothers with a handicapped kid?

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: " " <jc137@...>

> I don't know where you live, but here in New York healthcare costs are

out of control. If you don't have a job that comes with insurance

(often the case these days) and you aren't below the poverty line, the

MINIMUM you can pay for health insurance for ONE PERSON is $278 per

month. You cannot buy catastrophic insurance here; it just doesn't

exist. Since I generally don't go to doctors (except for a yearly

physical and gyn. exam), I was basically paying that high premium in the

event that I was hit by a bus.

If it is really that out of hand--and I find it rather hard to believe

that there were truly no cheaper options--this is a perfect example of

government solutions doing much more harm than good. Medical care was

not this expensive before government got involved. The widespread

proliferation of employer-provided " insurance " that covers even routine

costs has driven up prices, as have draconian regulations that, for

example, mandate coverage of certain items and make catastrophic

insurance illegal. The Foundation for Economic Education (God knows this

country needs it) has a good introductory article on the topic:

http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=2687

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/3/03 3:09:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> While there are arguments in favor of and against that liberation, there's

> not necessarily any inconsistency. If we decide that children need to be

> taken care of AND that adults need their liberty (and bear in mind, I'm not

> arguing either way here) then it's not impossible to conclude that in order

> to balance those interests we have to diffuse the responsibility throughout

> society so that it falls on everyone but more lightly, to maximize both

> child care and adult liberty.

That's true if society decides as a whole to hold these values, but it

hasn't. The question was whether society, through government, has the

responsibility to change economically, willingly or not, due to the perceived

rights of a

minority.

Chris