It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Conspiracies Of Poverty

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 01:02 AM
link   
Wow..what a powerful thread !

First of all I want to say to mOJOm:

Work it baby, preach it...you ROCK...Amen !!!!!
(sound familiar
)

You took the words SMACK out of my mouth. You said basically everything I was going to say so I haven't a whole hell of a lot to add.

My major thought reading your post, which happens to be completely in line with what Pisky and I believe to be true was "What I find hard to believe is that most shee....I mean PEOPLE don't see the financial world for what a sham it IS !!!"

How can people be so blind ?

Of COURSE there is a conspiracy to keep the poor exactly where they are !!!!

Muppet: You said yourself that the "pie" theory wasn't valid because the government could choose to print gold pieces if they wanted and eke them out to the poor. But they DON'T do they ? Therefore we have a "Pie" situation on our hands, luv. The fact that they don't do as you suggested makes it so.

There could be no greater favour towards the masses then if the Gods decided to all-out collapse the financial systems ( this would be the BANKS, the most evil corrupt #s out there).

No more paying the cost of FOUR houses to buy a single one.

No more charging you REAL money (interest) on money that doesn't exist.

No more being held in bondage by the banks, whose sole purpose is to own people completely by keeping them in debt pretty much from cradle to grave.

Anyone who believes that bankers are heroes doing us all a favour deserves the screwing they get. So bend over PLEASE and be prepared to admit later on that those of us who realized full well what crooks the bankers are were right all along.

No conspiracy to keep people poor ?

Let's touch a little on "Welfare" then, shall we ?

Which reminds me, to the poster who used the classic stereotype of a white trash woman with 5 kids by 5 different dads...Well, now, she didn't exactly get pregnant by herself, did she ? Hmmmm...that would take a pretty wild leap of biology ways I would think. But that's besides the point for the moment and I digress (I just hate stereotypes and the blaming of these women, simply because their most often the sex abandoned...ooops, I meant HONOURED (for the politically correct inclined) with the sole responsibility of raising these poor kids who are most likely not only going to remain poor but have to suffer societies discrimination against them).

Welfare:

Hmmmmm....such a nice word for such a truly hideous practice. "Welfare" has absolutely nothing to do with it. If it were true welfare , you would see those who are really trying to help themselves getting a little help, rather then the FEW who really ARE pumping out baby after baby (and please remember, babies aren't concieved alone. Last time I checked, the last Virgin birth was around 2 millennia ago).

If welfare were truly meant to help, you wouldn't have the soulless jobsworths (The Gatekeepers) masquerading as compassionate helpers to the poor (the social workers) while at the same time telling them that if they save a little money or have a minimum wage job on the side, they lose the money they need so badly to survive.

Name a petty rule or regulation. Welfare is sure to have it in the books. And it's NOT meant to really help people you can be rest assured. No. It's meant to keep the working poor exactly as they are.

As far as the poor being perfectly satisfied where they are ? All I can do is shake my head at this all too easy use of the official line. Which really serves nothing other then to keep the speaker perfectly "happy" and basically emotional and for sure spiritually comatose in his herd "mentality" world.

Lastly,

About the lottery. FULL agreement here. A tax on the poor is all it is. "Lottery money helps the poor" is the official line and if anyone believes it, well...just kindly refer to the above paragraph, please, for your personality analysis, complimentary of KayEm


In closing.....

Ever notice who actually wins the lotteries ? Rich, Old People. Almost always. But I'm not even gonna get started on THAT topic. Another thread entirely.




posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 01:22 AM
link   
You know I'm amazed that we have come to such a consensus on this issue! I agree with almost all of you, the rich have conspired to keep people in poverty, the lotto is a tax on the poor, the American bank system keeps people out of decient housing and gives them loans and credit cards that have rates ensuring the people at the bottom stay there.

Amazing insights! It's actually uplifting, even though this is a sobering and tragic topic, that there are people that see the system for what it is.

Now the hardest part: How can we change it?

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 01:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by KayEm
Muppet: You said yourself that the "pie" theory wasn't valid because the government could choose to print gold pieces if they wanted and eke them out to the poor. But they DON'T do they ? Therefore we have a "Pie" situation on our hands, luv. The fact that they don't do as you suggested makes it so.

The money supply isn't increased arbitrarily because doing so would cause inflation. But the money supply does increase, and the more value that is created in society, the more it does so. If a poor person becomes wealthier by creating value, everyone's standard of living improves.


There could be no greater favour towards the masses then if the Gods decided to all-out collapse the financial systems ( this would be the BANKS, the most evil corrupt out there).

Hello, Somalia.


No more paying the cost of FOUR houses to buy a single one.

I assume you're talking about mortgages. Interest is the cost for a service. If interest rates were 0%, no one would loan money and no one would get mortgages.


No more charging you REAL money (interest) on money that doesn't exist.

No money is any more real than any other money.


whose sole purpose is to own people completely by keeping them in debt pretty much from cradle to grave.

It doesn't matter what banks want. People make their own decisions. If they decide to give the banks what the banks want, that's their problem.


So bend over PLEASE and be prepared to admit later on that those of us who realized full well what crooks the bankers are were right all along.

What you lack in reasoning you make up for nicely in rhetoric.


All I can do is shake my head at this all too easy use of the official line.

Everyone's a rebel against what they perceive as the status-quo. Just because someone postures as being against the status-quo, it doesn't mean that I'll believe their claims without logical arguments.


About the lottery. FULL agreement here. A tax on the poor is all it is.

No one is forcing the poor to buy lottery tickets. In Florida, where I used to live, this is what proceeds from the lottery are used for:

www.flalottery.com...
www.flalottery.com...

If rich people often win the lottery, then claims that the only people who buy lottery tickets are poor are kind of questionable, aren't they?



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 07:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by KayEm
Muppet: You said yourself that the "pie" theory wasn't valid because the government could choose to print gold pieces if they wanted and eke them out to the poor. But they DON'T do they ? Therefore we have a "Pie" situation on our hands, luv. The fact that they don't do as you suggested makes it so.


I think you mean notes, not gold pieces, but still, it's no pie situation. Money does not come from the government. It comes from whoever you sold goods or services to, and in direct proportion to the amount of goods and services you supply. It really is as simple as that.

You guys should really learn something about economics. The system you describe may be similar to feudal estate in the middle ages, but has no resemblance to the world of today.

As for a conspiracy to hide the true workings of money from the masses? Let me let you into a secret... they conceal special, important information like that in.... books!


[edit : seriously though, one of my favourite introductions as to how capitalism really works is "Rich Dad, Poor Dad", by Robert Kiyosaki. It's a bestseller so you can get it anywhere. It's not a text-book but a popular business book, and really explains how things work in practice, so you can go apply it yourself. Highly recommended)


[edit on 9-7-2004 by muppet]

[edit on 9-7-2004 by muppet]



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by muppet
"Rich Dad, Poor Dad", by Robert Kiyosaki.

I'll look for that book.


As for a conspiracy to hide the true workings of money from the masses? Let me let you into a secret... they conceal special, important information like that in.... books!




posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by HeirToBokassa

Originally posted by muppet
"Rich Dad, Poor Dad", by Robert Kiyosaki.

I'll look for that book.


I think you'll enjoy it. It's light reading, but it certainly made me see things more clearly. On the subject of books there's another one you might like, relating to your outsourcing/technology interests from another thread..

"The Future of Success", by Robert B Reich, a former Secretary of the Dept. of Labor. It's a look at just the issues you talked about, and makes very interesting predictions as to how it'll all pan out.

He predicts the current outsourcing trends to continue, even to the breakup of many traditional corporate structures as every person becomes more independent, less secure, and essentially part of a huge interconnecting network of supply channels for goods, services, and increasingly, information. Food for thought, certainly. Right up your street I think!


( do you know about www.audible.com btw? great online source of un-abridged audiobooks like these. Great for lazy readers like me, and just like having the author in your living room explaining stuff to you..
)


[edit on 9-7-2004 by muppet]



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 01:59 PM
link   
A good movie about outsourcing and it's effects is "Rodger And Me" by none other than Michael Moore. I think it should be required viewing in all high school economics classes as it shows the real-world effects of corporate greed. It's about Flint Michigan and how GM's moving of a plant to Mexico killed the city. Good movie, lot more human drama than there was in F 9-11. If you rent it look for the director's cut where he goes back to Flint a few years later and does a follow-up.

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 02:36 PM
link   
WOW, just got thru reading all these great posts and had to jump in here myself. Speaking from experience, I have to say that while there most likely is a gov't conspiracy to keep the poor where they are while elivating the rich, that doesn't give people an excuse to accept it. Why should it? There are forces working against all of us all the time, what makes poverty any different? It was said earlier that people give up cause they are fighting a winless battle. That is BS in my opinion. I have lived in very undesirable locations before out of necessity. You could always tell those who accepted thier situation and those that did not. The ones that accepted that they were gonna stay in this "poor" lifestyle showed it in the way that they treated thier homes (rundown, overgrown grasses, garbage all over), raised thier kids (letting them stay out all night yelling in the streets, never making them accountable for thier misbehaviors), treated themselves (drank all day, refused to work, partied all night). The ones that knew this would not be the end result for thier lives chose the opposite path. Now what's the difference between these 2 types of people? One is gonna accept thier poverty and let the gov't dictate how they live thier lives, and one is gonna ignore the gov'ts intent to hold them back and move on. I made the choices in my life that moved me from one place to another, always getting to a better situation for myself (and now my wife and kid). Staying in those situations was never an option for me cause I had too much pride in myself. I am no one special, so I give no exception to those with a sound mind a body to not do the same for themselves.

[edit on 9-7-2004 by mpeake]



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Just to touch back a bit more of my opinion of the lottery.

Of course nobody makes people play the lottery, let alone the poor. But it can only be imagined that there are not many avenues available, except long hard struggles and work, to pull yourself out of poverty.

The lottery does provide a psuedo-glimmer, of aboyt 130,000,000 to 1, that they can change it all from where they currently are and their expected future. There are millions of poverty stricken that play lotteries.

If a person in the poverty class, and this figure of a marker is higher than you may think, is making about $10,000 yet feels compelled to spend $5.00 per week on tickets, they are spending $260 per year in lottery tickets.

That is about 2.6% of their total income. (dont forget the food sales taxes, income taxes, and road use registration related taxes if they are lucky enough to have a car).

That is much more than they should afford, but the 130,000,000 to 1 odds and the millions in prizes, provide them with a sense of hope. More hope than any other method they can fathom from within their dispair.

And yes I put it that way for a reason.
Many rise up from the ashes,....

But by far, many many more cannot carry the flame and drive, and resign the hope to their childrens dreams.



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by smirkley
yet feels compelled to spend $5.00 per week on tickets, they are spending $260 per year in lottery tickets.


Someone who earns $10,000 a year has every right to waste $5 per week on anything he/she wishes (within law). If you're going to outlaw the lottery, then be consistent and also outlaw cigarettes, liquor, magazines, junk food, designer clothes, $90 basketball shoes, movies, music, etc... Then pay the money to enforce those laws. And argue about where to draw the line.

The lottery exists. It's up to people to make the right decision. Society can try to influence people's decisions by either throwing money at the problem (by inventing legislation and trying desparately to enforce it), or on a personal basis. For people who feel passionately about this, why not get to know people who are throwing money away on the lottery, and try to reform them?

That's an idea. There are probably better ones. But really, if you create a black market then you're just opening the door to a whole host of shady entrepreneurs/extortionists to fill the gaps. If people need the state to make their decisions for them, then they're pretty much cattle. I don't think people are cattle, and I don't think the government needs to outlaw the lottery.



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:34 PM
link   
Boy this one is getting some good responces but from what I have read so far the only way we could solve the problem is total change. When you talk of total change in America to eliminate poverty can you still have the enterprise system that we do? In a Zen society would we all have the same amount of money no matter our own drive or ethic,what would that be called some form of socialisim? Does anyone else feel that our world is at a critical point that will set the stage for the rest of time. With populations exploding and resources being limited are we getting better or worse, going uphill or down and just where are we leading ourselves.



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Well I could never suggest that the lottery be outlawed, and yes it is well within their rights to buy them since the states offer this service.

But the weight of the waste of the money, falls heavier on the shoulders of the poor. If it were a private regulated company, the odds would be better, and the state wouldnt be implicated in it's revenue stream, except thru literal taxation of it's true tax-income producing portions.

(I tried to find some published numbers of demographic estimates for the lottery, but have yet to find any.)



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by factfinder38
Does anyone else feel that our world is at a critical point that will set the stage for the rest of time.


Yes!

And it's not going to be pretty! We are in my opinion at one of those transition periods. A post oil age (yes I am a of the 'Peak Oil' school) will force us to adapt to a much simpler form of existence. One that is less based on waste and consuption. I also believe that the current economic paradigm based of ever increasing profit (with no limit) has just about reached its breaking point and peak oil (the limit) is the final blow.



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 10:00 PM
link   
the thing is, capitalism is the natural state of affairs in any free society with a money system. Even anarchy will tend towards capitalism (although gold based I'd imagine).

One of the main things that keeps people down is the assumption they are stuck there. Nobody ever attempts something they believe to be impossible, and that unfortunately is one of the main barriers. the answer is eduction, education plus education. It should be free, relevant, available to all, at any age, and to whatever level is desired.

If we're getting a little more radical, I'd also go for FREE FOOD.

yup. FREE FOOD. For all, available everywhere. If there's one thing we can do with the advances of technology and agriculture, its provide free food. The other needs in live will provide more than enough impetus for capitalist activity, but in this day and age nobody should EVER go hungry. I'm not talking soup kitchens here but free supermarkets and distribution channels providing the simple, low cost basics.

So. free education, free food, and of course free essential health care. While traditionally expensive, all these things are actually "resource" cheap. (as compared to heavy industry and manufacturing, for example). There are little raw materials required, and from government point of view they can be provided at low cost. They are exercises in organization as much as anything.

With these essentials met, EVERYONE has at least what they need to live. Beyond that, people would still be free to live, earn, invest and live how they want.

it would work you know!!


[edit on 9-7-2004 by muppet]



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 10:11 PM
link   
Holly contradictions Batman!

Easy there. I almost got whiplash.


Capitalism is the natural state of affairs, but we should have all basic needs met by socialism.

Your own argument supports my opinion that capitalism is NOT the natural state of affairs. At least not what capitalism has evolved into (corporatism). I read Wealth of Nations years ago and from what I recall Smith was not describing what we have today. I also read Marx and Engle's manifesto and remember comming away with the impression that their description of the "current" (for them) state of affairs rang true today.

There has not been a "natural" state of affairs in economics since the end of bartering and living in small self sufficient agrarian communities.



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 10:14 PM
link   
hmmm free food, very interesting concept. It could work, it'd be difficult, but no more so than say winning a war. American farmers are already heavily government subsidized, so what would a little more hurt? I figure you could make basic essential food free, like say corn, bread, ground meat, milk, some basic fruits and vegetables, but keep the more expensive foods costing money, although less. It'd cost a lot, but it'd save a lot on the consumer end too. Interesting concept, maybe it could work.

May Peace Travel With You
~Astral



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   
in a sense yes, it is a contradiction, but let me explain.

Firstly, capitalism, IS the natural order in a free society with a money system. Why? because in a free society, some will choose to build businesses, invest money, get a job, or whatever to get more money.

Barring a few social experiments, history has show this. Everyone from the Babylonians, the romans, the persians, the chinese, all of european history (apart from the recent communism debacle) any civilization, with money. Capitalism is as old as money itself!

But remember capitalism isn't a form of government, it's a description of an economy. The US is capitalist, but it still has government services. Why shouldn't food be one of them?

We already have 2 out of 3 in the UK, why not add food as well? Is that really such a big step?
[edit : ok we're not quite there on education, but it's possible]

There's not contradiction at all, just a slight paradigm shift as to what people consider to be essential government services. And if you think about it, is it really such a big step?

[edit on 9-7-2004 by muppet]



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by muppet
some will choose to build businesses, invest money, get a job, or whatever to get more money.


And that is where greed comes in. You have to set some sort of limit on this activity to make things sustainable, otherwise it turns into exploitation.


Capitalism is as old as money itself!


Yes agreed. Ever since the invention of money and the concept of value there has been a form of capitalism. But since both are conceptual they are not a "natural" state of affairs. We need a new concept or "meme" if you will.


And if you think about it, is it really such a big step?


Oh it's as doable as say a national health care system. Will you pay more taxes to implement it?



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 10:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gools
Yes agreed. Ever since the invention of money and the concept of value there has been a form of capitalism. But since both are conceptual they are not a "natural" state of affairs. We need a new concept or "meme" if you will.


Money (and therefore capitalism), is a man made concept, but it's stood the test of time for 10,000 years, and it serves it's purpose well. there is no alternative that can work at anything other than micro community level (self sufficient communes etc). Great if everyone wants to live like Amish's, but not otherwise. The only other option is state controlled communism, which is anything but free, and doesn't work anyway.(see history!)



Oh it's as doable as say a national health care system. Will you pay more taxes to implement it?


yes, I would! though as I said, it's resource cheap, so wouldn't cost all that much at all.

p.s. I drink the the same pub Marx and Engels used to booze in. It hasn't changed much either apparently.

[edit on 9-7-2004 by muppet]



posted on Jul, 9 2004 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Not so sure about 10,000 years but yeah for a long time.

Do you think that the post "peak oil" situation will force the kind of Amish existence you seem to disdain?

I agree that state controlled communism as well as any type of centrally "planned" economy is unworkable.

Oh. And I too would pay a little more taxes (emphasis on little
) for such a program if I was sure there would be no bureaucratic waste and no shenanigans amongst those managing the program.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join