Why are the poor, poor?

[Brown Eyes]

Lets all right now start weeping for the starving children of 18th cent Ireland who have been dead for 280 years!

I can see that the left is now running out of ammo and need a little diversion.

The reality is that there really is no relevance to the comparison of the famines in Ireland in the 18th cent which Swift was parodying and the 21st cent American underclass. Just as there is no comparison to the fate of the underclass in this country to the fate of the starving in 3rd world countries of today.

Now if you really feel a call to save starving children such as described by Swift, then go to Africa. There in the Islamic country of Sudan, a people are being starved to death in a type of ethnic cleansing.

and if people advancing the cause of the welfare state actually believe that there is a comparison, then the gulf is too wide to bridge the debate without using words like "delusional" and "confused".

The point about the comparison was not about famine per se.  It was about the extremity and harshness of solutions being offered to the problems related to poverty and the issue of children in the context of poverty.  In the one case, forced sterilization of poverty striken parents (discussed in this thread) and eating/selling children (as in the classic, satirical, and ironic Swift essay).

[serious crayons]

my interpretation of her INTENT was to show how attitudes are still the same. The attitudes that were being parodied THEN are still active today.

Thank you, Jess. That was exactly my intent.

 

[Artiste]

Why are the poor, poor ?

Reasons and solutions, please !!

More...

au revoir,
hugs!      I know that for some First Nations, not only were their lands stolen, but where they are now, governments are causing them too much hardships !  Did you read my post about the child who died because of two governments ?

[HerrKaiser]

well one thing that might help is if you ask your friend to stop making up words...it is difficult enough to follow his posts without him making up words and expecting that we all know what he is talking about..

what does this notation have to do with anything regarding my post?   (or the price of eggs in montana?)

I referred directly to JW's makes sense/bizarre back and forth that was simply undecipherable.

If you, injest, are taking pause to criticize broketrash, who I assume you mean, what is he making up? Or are his words simply just those not in everyday vocabulary? Big difference, yes?

[Jeff Wrangler]

At the risk of retreading ground that has already been covered. ...

If the single woman had not felt comfortable, in the first place, that a child she could not afford would be covered by the broken system, she likely would have made better choices. 

the above posts are a fine indication of how confused many posts are:

1) seriouscrayons uses my quote to suggest it supports a point by JW

2) JW salutes seriouscrayons for stating this opinion.

3) JW then refers to the same quote as bizarre thinking.

It is bizarre thinking, that a woman would make a decision to have children based on anticipation that "the system" would support them.

 JW, it boggles a logical mind that you would claim to be misread when your exact words are used to quote.

It further boggles the logical mind that you would claim to be misunderstood when you say what you mean.

If we cannot believe what you write is accurate and we cannot believe what you compose means what it says....what the heck is up with that?
Sheeeez.

I can only presume what I've quoted above is what you are referring to, but who knows?

And as for that final comment, if you can't comprehend plain English and so just twist it to mean what you wish it to mean ... what the heck is up with that?

Sheeez. ...

[Artiste]

Why should the poor get a fair share of the wealth in the USA and Canada, when they are forced to push illegal drugs and work like slaves ??

[Jeff Wrangler]

Thanks, Jeff! You're right, and I was about to post the same thing. Broketrash disputed what I said ... by repeating what I said! 

How come you and I have to spend all our time nowadays explaining each other's posts -- not even just defending, but actually explaining -- to HerrKaiser and broketrash? 

As for Broketrash, I don't know, and as for HerrKaiser, who finds me incomprehensible and, I think, just called me a liar (but from his prose, it's difficult to tell  ), I just won't say.

Why on earth would I want to "dodge the economic motivating factors in voting decisions"? Economic factors are unquestionably among the biggest motivators in voting decisions. With the exception, that is, of voting by affluent Democrats and middle- or lower-income Republicans -- two groups who for some reason vote against their own economic interests.    Apparently they're more motivated by their views on social issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

 

Oh, right. The literature of the past could not possibly have any relevance or interest in the present\.

Unless, of course, it's the Bible, being used by Conservatives to justify homophobia. ...

And by my count, that's officially three and four times you guys have refused to acknowledge the question that Jeff and I have raised about how this policy of punishing parents for their deeds will affect their children. Guess concern for the well-being of kids is just more of that silly liberalthink, hunh?

That tells you something about the Conservative mentality, doesn't it? It's typical. It's inconvenient to the Conservative position to acknowledge that innocent children might be affected by the Conservative program for the mothers of those children, so Conservatives just ignore the inconvenient detail and pretend    that the inconvenient detail doesn't exist. Instead, they find some way to attack whoever points out the detail they don't want to deal with.

[Artiste]

Bible or Koran or another crap book, poor merit to have decent jobs !

[Brown Eyes]

my interpretation of her INTENT was to show how attitudes are still the same. The attitudes that were being parodied THEN are still active today.

Definitely.  Thanks Jess.  Some of the important points of the Swift essay that Katherine posted and that we discussed a while back are both to highlight the harshness and cruelty of attitudes and "solutions" directed at the issue of poverty and to highlight how unrealistic certain of the harsh proposals can be.  And, the fact that the general tone and general points (not the absolute, specific historical context of 17th century Ireland) can be applied so easily to certain situations even today is just so striking and illustrates how much of a dilemma the goal of alleviating poverty has been for centuries.

Anyway, more on why it's relevant to this thread... the general topic of "why are the poor, poor" seems to be a really productive heading under which we can have a wide-ranging discussion of the humanitarian issue of poverty.  Historical context seems vital to understanding the scope of the issue.  And, Swift's essay is one of the most famous and widely cited/read pieces of writing on the topic of poverty... again for centuries now.

[louisev]

Why are the poor, poor? In a word, "Karma."

I am genuinely not trying to trivialize this important issue by responding as I have. It is what I sincerely believe.

I believe that it is only the karmically UNevolved who are given wealth, because they are "young" souls, unaccustomed to the rigours of life and its lessons. We are given wealth in our early incarnations in order to soften the hardships of life. It is only after we progress karmically through many incarnations that we gain the privilege of attaining the lessons provided by lives of poverty. It is only then that we have the strength and experience from progressively experiencing more and ever more challenging incarnations that we are able to cope with poverty.

It is my belief that the entity who is closest to Nirvana and experiencing his/her final incarnation on Earth prior to progressing to a state of everlasting Bliss is more likely to be the beggar on the street, NOT the millionaire in his mansion.

We in the West see wealth as a blessing. Karmically speaking, it is just the opposite.

Peace. 

another way of viewing the karmic value of poverty is that those who are unfortunate in a worldly way (i.e. lacking material resources, or are handicapped or born ill) may have chosen such limitations in order to provide learning opportunities for others, not for themselves.  In other words,  a child born with with autism or mental retardation may have elected to provide lessons to their parents in patience and compassion, and those who are born in poverty and want are providing opportunities for others to gain experience in being selfless and charitable.  If everyone were fortunate there would be no need for selflessness and charitability.