I Have Figured Politics Out-Finally

[gmc]

Originally Posted by Lon

The average American has no clue as to the different kinds of socialism and tends to equate it with communism. I have spent a good part of the past 20 years in Australia and New Zealand and had my previous fears and misunderstandings of socialism dispelled.

As for the English language, I'm afraid that with increased texting, and what's seems to be youth's inability to make themselves understood to anyone other than their peer group, the English language as I knew it as a youth will go the way of the Do Do Bird.

Language is alive and changes all the time no point lamenting imo.. One of the reasons english has become so prevalent is because it is so eclectic and is a word for a concept doesn't exist one is just made up. television and telephone are just two examples of it-way of the dodo is another come to that I know what you mean somebody in 1776 would not. . text language is another-it's a technical language for a specific purpose just like other other technical languages used in all industries. We do need a common nucleus though.

Newspeak is another new word that entered the vocabulary post ww2. You can see it in action all around bit I think in the states more than most. If you restrict the language of political debate you also restrict the choices you can make. I don't see how anyone can study history without being aware of the demand for social change of which socialism is but one strand. The roots go back a very long way and curiously enough the american revolution was a key factor in it's spread with all the french soldiers coming back from america filled with the liberal ideas they were hearing for the first time. Yet if you point out american revolutionaries have anything remotely in common with socialism americans spit out the dummy.

Course I like provoking debate as opposed to the usual diatribe you tend to get.

[QUINNSCOMMENTARY]

Originally Posted by spot

1 - I was responding to the outrageous "Our poor have cable tv and air conditioning" comment.

2 - Nobody would be more delighted than I were you to find an authoritative count. Your government seems to believe that uncounted means unreal, rather like excess deaths in Iraq.

Actually, that comment is not so outrageous, it's true and in addition about 70% of those people classified as "poor" by government standards have their own home as well. They for thge most part also own a car. So poor in America is generally (although clearly with exceptions) is not same poor as one sees on TV around the world.

As far as the number goes 800,000 to 1,000,000 seems to be close as best I can find, but that is not at any one time, but over the course of a year and not all the same people. So, if there were 90,000 people homeless each month that's how one gets to the million number.

[spot]

Quinn, you're implying that nobody in the US is homeless for longer than four weeks and then it's over. If you're looking for a figure of unintentionally homeless for a period, summed up across a year, you get to between three and four million - go check the charities counts. As I say, the US government really doesn't want to and really won't do it.

As for the American government definition of the American poor as opposed to the one I'm using, yes the definition exists, it's a smokescreen. Throw it away because what it refers to isn't the American poor. What I'm referring to is a part of the American poor, not the people you accurately describe as having cable tv and air conditioning and their own home as well which the American government calls poor. It's all a matter of vocabulary and the Orwellian notion that if there are no words to refer to something then it doesn't exist.

Socialist governments count these things in their own countries very closely and publish the results.

[Accountable]

It's not an issue for our federal gov't. If you have to demonize an American institution, demonize the individual states.

[spot]

Originally Posted by Accountable

It's not an issue for our federal gov't. If you have to demonize an American institution, demonize the individual states.

The only reason it's not an issue for your federal government is because you collectively choose to allow your government at all levels to avoid entering into a social contract with the people. You collectively get the style of government which you collectively select and the current US model has no meaningful social contract. It's of no concern whatever to anyone who doesn't live there, it's an internal affair of the people of the USA. I'm merely pointing out what I'd change if I were so unfortunate as to be subject to those circumstances.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by spot

The only reason it's not an issue for your federal government is because you collectively choose to allow your government at all levels to avoid entering into a social contract with the people. You collectively get the style of government which you collectively select and the current US model has no meaningful social contract. It's of no concern whatever to anyone who doesn't live there, it's an internal affair of the people of the USA. I'm merely pointing out what I'd change if I were so unfortunate as to be subject to those circumstances.

'kay

[Accountable]

Article

In America, we consider a family of four "poor" if its annual income falls below $21,203. And we actually undercount income -- ignoring assets accumulated in prior years and disregarding non-cash welfare, such as taxpayer-funded education, lunch programs, health care, food stamps and subsidies for public housing. Only 6 percent of poor households, according to The Heritage Foundation, are overcrowded -- meaning more than one person per room. More than two-thirds of "poor" Americans live in housing with more than two rooms per person. And 43 percent of America's poor households own their own homes -- and the average poor person's home has three bedrooms, one-and-a-half bathrooms, a garage and a porch or a patio.

"Overall," writes Heritage, "the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family's essential needs. While this individual's life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists, and politicians."

"Nearly three-quarters of poor U.S. households own a car," says the study, "31 percent own two or more cars. Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions. Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception. Eighty-nine percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and more than a third have an automatic dishwasher."
In 1970, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population -- rich and poor -- lived with air conditioning, while today 80 percent of poor households have air conditioning. The average poor American has more living space than the average citizen -- of all income levels -- living in many cities throughout Europe, including Paris, London, Vienna and Athens.

[spot]

The US relies on propaganda to sustain its existence as much as the Soviets used to and for the same reason, it's driven by a political ideology - Capitalism in the case of the US, Communism in the case of the Soviet Union. Of course you can find propagandist statements of the sort you've just added to the thread. My analysis of the wide division between the majority poor and the minority rich in the US stands, for all that. It's based on a reasonable interpretation of Inland Revenue summary information. By all means attack my mathematics if you want to show where I'm mistaken, but failing that accept what I've said is based on hard fact.

[Accountable]

Originally Posted by spot

The US relies on propaganda to sustain its existence as much as the Soviets used to and for the same

That's right. *pats spot's widdle head* Anything not matching your preconceived notions can't possibly be factual, therefore must be propaganda. Now you've said your piece, you can go back to mumbling vague curses to America. Off you go.

[spot]

Originally Posted by Accountable

That's right. *pats spot's widdle head* Anything not matching your preconceived notions can't possibly be factual, therefore must be propaganda. Now you've said your piece, you can go back to mumbling vague curses to America. Off you go.

And my statement on income disparity's based on factual figures too? You missed mentioning that bit.