1 in 6 Americans in poverty?

[The Jester]

Agreed, the South Vietnamese and their American allies should be forgiven their atrocities they committed to defend south Vietnam.

America just supported because they feared communism.

Yeah thats nice, except in order for that to happen you dont just give up your freedom, we all have to. And I am not afraid of failure so I am not apt to give up my freedom. Let everyone else fend for themselves, no ones putting food in my mouth or gas in my truck.

I'm not afraid of failure either.
I just don't like see people suffering, and I believe that everyone deserves an equal chance.

And what do you define as freedom?
Everyone having the same chances when they are born, or being born where the financial status of your family is still important in order to get a somewhat decent job.

To me it's the first one, but I know you believe freedom is not having to pay a lot of taxes.

I'm not worried about myself here. I know I will be able to survive.
I rather share my wealth if this makes sure other people are able to climb the ladder, than living in a big house when I know there are people in my country that need help and can't do anything about it because you need money to earn money.

I don't feel the need to have all this luxury.
Some small house with just the basic stuff and a normal car would satisfy me, because I don't see the need in getting something more expensive while the other can fullfil your basic needs.

And it's also more important to me to do the job I like, and socialism makes this possible, because we all get equal chances.

The taxes aren't that bad in Belgium, and still we have such a good social system. (We even have 5 governments, but I'm not going to explain that one because it's a bit difficult )

Seriously, I'm glad I am born in Belgium. I'd take France, the Netherlands, Belgium, ... over the US any day.

And to the ones who say the US is patriotic: our countries are too, I could tell you such awesome stories about how Belgians fought wars to defend their language, their culture, ...
We know what it is to fight for what you believe, because we had to fight for our right to get educated in our own language. (Not only that aspect, but yeah)

But we are also critical of our country. And I believe that is important.
Here, the people control the government, and not the other way around.

Thanks.

 

[bamf]

Well, the Geneva Conference of 1954 basically put Vietnam independent of outside rule, including French and whatnot, and separated the country into communist North and non-communist South by the 17th parallel. They were meant to hold elections that would unite the country, but the South blocked the elections for fear of communist rule. From there, conflicts began to pick up -- the Viet Mihn began taking military action against South Vietnam, and the Vietcong, communist sympathizers in South Vietnam, used guerrilla warfare from within South Vietnam.

America began giving South Vietnam military training during Eisenhower's years because the South Vietnamese army was not really that great and they requested help, but we didn't actually send any troops to help in military conflict until Kennedy's presidency. From there, the conflict escalated until Vietnamization was set into motion.

The conflict was between the Vietnamese, and the Vietnamese were meant to fight. They were being heavily influenced from the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., but they were the ones fighting, and they were not "innocent victims." The only innocent ones were civilians, but that goes for any military conflict.

They quite possibly would have fallen to communism anyways. After Vietnam became communist, Laos and Cambodia became communist as well.

And no, atrocities shouldn't be forgiven, but they should be understood. We need to learn from that.

Right, I'm not arguing with how it happened. All I was saying is what came before 1954. Vietnam was unified as one country after the Japanese surrendered. The allies then came in and split the country up. The allies split them up; the allies created the root of the problem. There wouldn't have been a need for the '54 Geneva convention had we not meddled in the country when they declared themselves an independent nation. (The Viet Mihn were supported by a large portion of the population).

The people of Vietnam became the pawns of the Cold War. A war they never should have been involved in, had they not had their independence stripped away from them.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

Right, I'm not arguing with how it happened. All I was saying is what came before 1954. Vietnam was unified as one country after the Japanese surrendered. The allies then came in and split the country up. The allies split them up; the allies created the root of the problem. There wouldn't have been a need for the '54 Geneva convention had we not meddled in the country when they declared themselves an independent nation. (The Viet Mihn were supported by a large portion of the population).

The people of Vietnam became the pawns of the Cold War. A war they never should have been involved in, had they not had their independence stripped away from them.

Odds are, even if the allies didn't get involved, they probably still would have fallen to communism. One of the Marxist principles behind communism is the spread thereof...it is very possible that it would have happened anyways.

 

[bamf]

Odds are, even if the allies didn't get involved, they probably still would have fallen to communism. One of the Marxist principles behind communism is the spread thereof...it is very possible that it would have happened anyways.

I agree, it probably would have. But does that mean it would have been wrong?

 

[Shai Gar]

Well, the Geneva Conference of 1954 basically put Vietnam independent of outside rule, including French and whatnot, and separated the country into communist North and non-communist South by the 17th parallel.

So you're legitimising outside forces control over sovereign nations.

Right, I'm giving the top half of the USA to Canada and Britain, and the South to Cuba and Mexico.

 

[Shai Gar]

Odds are, even if the allies didn't get involved, they probably still would have fallen to communism. One of the Marxist principles behind communism is the spread thereof...it is very possible that it would have happened anyways.

There is no FALLEN to communism, like Mongolia, they democratically voted for communism.

 

[TinyBubbles]

I grew up in Australia but lived in India and Algeria for a few years, and have also visited America. There's a HUGE difference between poverty in poor countries and poverty in America, most poor in America can still afford food, and basic housing. Most have tv's and computers! The poor people in other countries are truly poor, they're starving and live in filth. Children will run up to your feet and beg you for money, and if you give them hoards more come up to you. It's horrible. One of the biggest differences is that nobody eats meat except rarely, because it's so expensive,but in america it's eaten at every meal! I was suprised by that.

Anyway I don't think poverty necessarily relates to unhappiness. Some of the poorest people I've known have also been happy, because they had a lot of family and friends around them. Maybe in America the poor are worse off because there are less people around who care about them.

By the way the stereotype that most of the world wants to live in America is true. You tell someone you've been there and their eyes open up with wonder. I've seen it happen.

 

[Pristinegirl]

There is no FALLEN to communism, like Mongolia, they democratically voted for communism.

At first yes, BUT as soon as there are no consistent re-elections, it turnes into a dictatorship!!

 

[Shai Gar]

At first yes, BUT as soon as there are no consistent re-elections, it turnes into a dictatorship!!

A dictatorship is preferable.

 

[Julia]

I don't consider myself aligned with a particular political ideology because the context of the application has as much to do with the result as the ideology itself. Whether socialism or free-market Capitalism, different applications can have widely varied results as any social institution like even marriage which has had millions of applications, each with varied results. The following is my impression and hypothesis at this point.

There is a potential problem placing individual freedom as a counter to socialism. Less government doesn't necessarily mean more power to the individual. It can mean there is a power vacuum that other structures will dominate. The individual vs. government are not equivalent power structures and are not what are in direct opposition. In every system power structures emerge that attempt to dominant all else. In Capitalism it is the corporation. The way to maximize individual freedoms is to have the power structures which are in place to have checks-and-balances between them to create a stasis in which not one will dominate.

The U.S. is in an interesting dynamic because there is an interplay between government and corporations in which there are not stable checks-and-balances, but in which we are in a state of transition and flux. While in transition, personal freedoms are present as a result of one power structure not dominating. If free-market Capitalism were to operate unfettered, corporations would likely dominate, create monopolies, and result in their own sort of dictatorships. Without a strong enough government to bail them out when they exploit everyone, a certain balance might be struck. If these power structures had to face the natural consequences of their actions, it could possibly moderate the extent to which they dominate and exploit society. Once in place, there wouldn't be much chance of overthrowing the structure except through natural process.

If government is the power structure, then when the people democratically vote someone into power, that person needs to actually have that power and represent the people who voted them in for that system to operate. One advantage to a democratic government being the center of control in a society is that there is opportunity to vote someone out of office if they don't live up to the people's expectations. There are also problems that can result that have been discussed in democratic socialism in which the government has more power.

In the end corporations and socialist governments both want to take everyone's money and the problem of poverty can exist under any power structure. A short-term view of things is to feel there is a sense of individual autonomy and control over one's life. I think there is some degree of that in the U.S., but nothing is static, and the level of control the corporations have over the government since Reagan lifted regulations is shifting the power in their favor. Power structures that large often take time to transition.

Power is constantly in transition, so personal freedoms come and go. Finding a way to stabilize power to maximize personal freedoms for the long term is not something I feel confident that the U.S. has achieved. Personal freedoms can exist while power structures are in transition or when they reach a stable stasis. One produces short-term freedoms, the other longer-term.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

So you're legitimising outside forces control over sovereign nations.

Right, I'm giving the top half of the USA to Canada and Britain, and the South to Cuba and Mexico.

I'm not legitimizing anything. That's how that happened. A lot of things were done like that after WWII -- Korea was split in the same way. And around that time, a lot of old European colonies began gaining independence. There were a lot of changes in the map with the end of the war.

There is no FALLEN to communism, like Mongolia, they democratically voted for communism.

Actually, a lot of communist revolutions were rather violent. I'm not saying this from an American "I hate communism" view, because the ideology is not bad in and of itself and I don't hate it, but there tended to be conflicts and violence involved with communism, at least outside of the sphere of Soviet influence.

For instance: "the Khmer Rouge would enact a genocidal policy that would kill over one-fifth of all Cambodians, or more than a million people."
"During the interim between the capture of the Citadel and end of the "Battle of Hue", the communist insurgent occupying forces massacred several thousand unarmed Hue civilians (estimates vary up to a high of 6000)."
Cuban communist revolution -- "One estimate is that 15,000 to 17,000 people were executed."

 

[bamf]

I think the tendency of all regime/government changes is to be violent, not just communism.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

That's true. I can't say I'm a fan of any extremist revolution.

 

[BenW]

I know significantly more than 6 Americans, and not a single impoverished person.
Go figure.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

One of the problems with that statistic is the area that the US covers. I mean, that's a huge amount of area, and it doesn't really take into account the different types of areas and people. Obviously, there are going to be a lot more impoverished people concentrated in cities, and that is really going to drive up the number. Does that mean everyone spread across the entire country is having or dealing with a lot of people with a crisis? Not necessarily.

 

[Shai Gar]

I'm not legitimizing anything. That's how that happened. A lot of things were done like that after WWII -- Korea was split in the same way. And around that time, a lot of old European colonies began gaining independence. There were a lot of changes in the map with the end of the war.

No, that's what happened in Geneva. That doesn't mean it was accepted by the people. Quite obviously, considering the 30 year war.

Actually, a lot of communist revolutions were rather violent. I'm not saying this from an American "I hate communism" view, because the ideology is not bad in and of itself and I don't hate it, but there tended to be conflicts and violence involved with communism, at least outside of the sphere of Soviet influence.

For instance: "the Khmer Rouge would enact a genocidal policy that would kill over one-fifth of all Cambodians, or more than a million people."
"During the interim between the capture of the Citadel and end of the "Battle of Hue", the communist insurgent occupying forces massacred several thousand unarmed Hue civilians (estimates vary up to a high of 6000)."
Cuban communist revolution -- "One estimate is that 15,000 to 17,000 people were executed."

I'm aware that they were. However the two examples I gave, were given as democratically electing communism. Could you refute that?

In a way that doesn't also refute the most recent elections of Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[gloomy-optimist]

No, that's what happened in Geneva. That doesn't mean it was accepted by the people. Quite obviously, considering the 30 year war.

It may not have been accepted by the people, but that's how it happened. Remember, they were being ruled by an outside power for a very long time; there were a lot of colonies before then. A lot of people were given freedom from those countries, though. They aimed more for allowing for the sovereign rule of the indigenous people after the war, and a lot of countries were actually freed from outside rule.

I'm aware that they were. However the two examples I gave, were given as democratically electing communism. Could you refute that?

In a way that doesn't also refute the most recent elections of Iraq or Afghanistan.

Communism is not a bad ideology. It has some very appealing aspects. I understand why some countries would elect communism. I never said that it was only achieved through violent revolution. I mean, North Vietnam wanted communism, and so did North Korea as well.

The problem, though, is part of Marxist philosophy involves the spread of communism and revolution -- which is one of the reasons that it can be violent. South Vietnam was fighting North Vietnam because they did not want to become communist. That's where the problem starts. You can't deny that there were plenty of countries that could have had a much cleaner intro into communism.

 

[Julia]

I know significantly more than 6 Americans, and not a single impoverished person.
Go figure.

Okay. Poverty is not evenly distributed through each region and neighborhood. It isn't like every sixth house is dilapidated on each street. I know you know this, but that sort of statistic is a fairly obvious concept to figure out. Impoverished people primarily know other impoverished people. Wealthy people primarily know others who are wealthy. The same goes for the middle class who might on occasion bump into one or the other depending on what borders their own neighborhood and experience. People also get conditioned to selectively see different things. I technically almost never see anyone impoverished now, unless I notice my peripheral vision when driving down main street.

 

[muir]

It seems like part of the issue for the U.S. is that there are ways free-market capitalism does not mesh well with the democratic process as it is in place here. The democratic process here is wholly dependent on a checks and balances between its power structures. The power structures that emerge from free-market capitalism have few or no such check and balances in relationship to the structures of democracy.

The problem is that the corporations gain all the benefits from those power structures without facing the natural consequences of the free-market. There probably should have been a mass extinction of corporations, but this would have resulted in tremendous suffering and poverty in the populace. Instead they propped themselves up on the democratic power structures. There is a parasitic relationship formed in which the less the government regulates the corporation, the more the corporation regulates the government. The elected officials in Congress represent the interests of the corporations that back them financially. The illusion that they represent the populace that voted them into office makes the democratic process nothing more than a front for corporate power.

Perhaps if the above point is repeated enough it might sink in for the less discerning.

Of course they may counter this by falling back on ad hominum attacks such as accusations of: a lack of 'patriotism', 'cynicism', 'communism', 'terrorism', 'blasphemy' or any other abuse of language which their particular state of delusionment might conjure up out of their ignorance and/or prejudice.

Comparisons between the wealthy 'west' and third world countries are fairly immaterial in discussions over which systems are better. The 'west' has exploited the third world and continues to do so, ensuring that it remains poor. One of the reasons people in the 'west' enjoy relative prosperity is because it comes at the expense of the third world who are not allowed to scrape their way out of poverty. The USA is one of the most influential players in this process.

Despite the exploitation of the third world the western countries STILL haven't eradicated poverty in their own countries.

You can ask yourself why or you can walk by on the other side of the road, metaphorically speaking.

 

[Pristinegirl]

Then maybe I can see you We'll need to talk about this

Definetly, I'm going December 12!!!
My ESTA application was approved and is valid untill 29 Oct 2011 HAHA