It's time for a basic minimum income!

It's time for a basic minimum income!

All around the world, people are talking about a basic minimum income, and what they're saying makes a lot of economic sense.  Regardless of whether you want to fight poverty, stimulate the economy, shrink the size of government, or simply ensure everyone has a sense of human dignity – you should be calling for a no-strings-attached basic income for all.  Since it's inception, Social Security has been incredibly successful at fighting poverty.  So rather than slashing it, or means-testing it, we should expand it to every American.  

In addition to helping low-income workers, a basic income would provide a huge boost to our economy.  When people have money to spend, demand increases, and businesses see faster growth and higher profits.  Even those who believe that the size of government is our biggest problem should be all-in-favor of a minimum income for all Americans.  Rather than administering a huge patchwork of overlapping social programs, our nation could save time and money by simply issuing every citizen a monthly check.  

A basic minimum income makes sense economically, and it could lead to important social benefits too.  Crime rates would likely decrease because people wouldn't need to steal to survive.  More Americans would have the opportunity to raise families or complete their education when they're not working three jobs just to get by.  And, a minimum income would ensure that no one would be denied their basic human dignity by being forced to live in squalor in the richest nation of the face of the Earth.  These are not extreme ideas.  When you consider the economic, social, and moral benefits, a basic minimum income just makes sense. 

Comments

Aliceinwonderland
Aliceinwonderland's picture
Thom, unless we find a way to

Thom, unless we find a way to isolate psychopathy, and erase it from our DNA and/or the human genome, this is no more than a pipe dream.  Because these subhumans (or "lizard people" or whatever you want to call them) are already in the driver's seat, and their plan for the "New World Order" is well underway.  The rest of us aren't invited to the party.  - Aliceinwonderland

ckrob
ckrob's picture
As I understand it, the U.S.

As I understand it, the U.S. poverty level is calculated as three times the cost of a defined basket of food. It does not take into account differential inflation in essentials such as housing costs. Other countries calculate poverty as a percent of median income. What are the advantages and disadvantages of these disparate methods of calculation? It would make a difference in how much a minimum income should be. Neither strategy would, I think, do much to correct our biggest problem: the wealthy are taking almost all newly created wealth. Income disparity will continue to increase despite a 'minimum income' until a progressive income tax is reinstituted.

mathboy
mathboy's picture
The newton (N) is a unit of

The newton (N) is a unit of force, equal to that needed to accelerate a kilogram at a rate of 1 meter per second per second, or equivalent to the weight (on Earth) of about 102 grams (3.6 ounces).

The pascal (Pa) is a unit of pressure, equal to a newton per square meter. Standard atmospheric pressure is 101,325 Pa. This means that over every square meter of the Earth's surface, there is a mass of 10.3323 metric tons of air. To have the same mass of water, it would have to be 10.3323 meters (33.9 feet) deep.

ckrob
ckrob's picture
And as we all know, a newton

And as we all know, a newton equals 0.007 slugs.

mathboy
mathboy's picture
We could do something like

We could do something like this through the tax code. Give individuals (plus dependents) deductions for food, clothing, shelter, transportation, education and medicine. (Some of those would be based on national or state averages, others would be based on individual expenditure.) If the deductions make the taxable income negative, then the positive taxation rate means the government gives that person money.

(Funny story: I came up with that list of 6 deductions back in 2006 or 2007, but David C. Korten's 2009 book Agenda for a New Economy has almost the same list on p. 97, in a list of things that should replace phantom wealth as economic indicators. He left out clothing and said "health care" instead of "medicine".)

DAnneMarc
DAnneMarc's picture
I think pets should count as

I think pets should count as dependants. It would be a great way to reduce the load on animal shelters; which, we pay for with our taxes anyway.

mathboy
mathboy's picture
Of course von Däniken's

Of course von Däniken's writings are fascinating, they're about amazing events worthy of science fiction.

James Randi briefly debunks von Däniken's writings in his book Flim-Flam!, ch. 6 "The Paper Chariots in Flames". That's from 1982, but there's probably something out there that takes advantage of the last 32 years of archeological scholarship.

Randi also accuses von Däniken of racism, because he seems to think that the great works of brown people couldn't possibly be their own; they must have had help. But he doesn't suggest that the great works of white people (such as the Parthenon and Stonehenge) weren't achieved by white people.

SHFabian
SHFabian's picture
Our problem: Not everyone can

Our problem: Not everyone can work, due to health or circumstances, and there simply aren't jobs for all who need one. The US shipped out a massive portion of our working class jobs since the 1980s. The last I heard, there are 7 jobs available for every 10 people who desperately need jobs, and this generation utterly turns its back on the remaining three. If you are able to work AND have a job, you're already doing much better than many. You have a foot on the economic ladder. I'm far more concerned about the long-term unemployed and the unemployable.

SHFabian
SHFabian's picture
Didn't von Daniken allege

Didn't von Daniken allege that such achievements as Stonehenge were the result of extraterrestial involvement? What color would those from distant planets be? No matter, more advanced civilizations wouldn't be obsessed with issues as trivial as hereditary skin pigmentation.

goat-on-a-stick
goat-on-a-stick's picture
This makes perfect sense. Tax

This makes perfect sense. Tax breaks for the wealthy just means more money in their pocket that stays in their pocket. Extra money to a rich person will probably just be sat on, in a bank or in an investment of some sort. Money given to a poor person will mostly be spent, and not on luxury goods, on life necessities from a variety of stores and services. Not only would it boost the economy, we would see higher moral, more socializing, less violence, and far more happiness. Most of it could probably be paid for by the tax breaks and untaxed overseas income from large corporations, but instead we subsidize big oil companies, and complain about the cost of providing food stamps for the poor.

We could set an example to the rest of the world. We need to show them that being the wealthiest nation means prosperity for all, instead of an ever growing wealth gap that puts us to shame in comparison to "poorer nations".

kentw
kentw's picture
I agree With ckrob.  The

I agree With ckrob.  The minimum income would almost surely be set too low.  

The majority of politicians, I suspect, have little first-hand knowledge of people who live in poverty or even of the lives of people living in the lower middle class.  Many share the view that their fellow citizens are lazy good-for-nothings, based, apparently, on some ignorant or poisonous reading of the Bible or on the egoistic social and moral "theory" of Ayn Rand, or on some biased "evidence" propounded by Charles Murray.

Suze O
Suze O's picture
I would imagine that this

I would imagine that this would be a good way to aleviate the increasing poverty in this country. However, there will always be enough Republicans, or other "why should I subsidize people who don't work" ideologies, out there to make enacting something like this virtually impossible, That said, people that can't make ends meet should have some help to get them through without the desperation so many of them are fighting with now, and certainly those who can't work should be looked after. Relief would be there for them if certain people in our government weren't so intent on removing the safety net. It would also help immensely if the minimum wage was also a LIVING wage. But that too is turning into an uphill battle. We really DO need to get the rich and greedy out of the way!

loritrew
loritrew's picture
Thom: right off the bat, I

Thom: right off the bat, I want to tell you that listening to you every afternoon after work makes living way better!!!!!

Yes, the minimum wage should be raised. In the 90's, I traveled to Australia, where the minimum wage for adults at the time was somewhere around $16.00 per hour. I knew two people, both living on minimum wage, who were able to purchase a house and live a nice life. We are sad excuses for humans in the US. At some point, everyone needs to decide: are we here for each other to live in mutual prosperity, peace and harmony in the beauty of this most amazing beautiful and generous planet or are we here for GREED? It's a simple choice.

bobcox
bobcox's picture
Please use the term "living

Please use the term "living wage".  Its much more meaningful than the "minimum wage concept.  It is also use in northern European countries to some extent.

BlackKnight
BlackKnight's picture
Great idea, Thom!!  Just

Great idea, Thom!!  Just think how thrilled those Tea Partiers ought to be with the size of government and government services reduced markedly by this increased efficiency.  Ayn Rand would not have had to live the last years of her life on social security and medicare.

Actually guaranteeing everyone a good job at a living wage would do much the same thing - so long as those who cannot work would be cared for in a fair and equitable manner.

Some common courtesy and good manners would be returning to our government and to our country. 

Palindromedary
Palindromedary's picture
SHFabian wrote:What color

SHFabian wrote:
What color would those from distant planets be?
Everyone that has seen them, then some, knows that they are grey! Except for the Lizard People who can morph into any color they want. ;-}

Palindromedary
Palindromedary's picture
And talking about Lizard

And talking about Lizard People...I ran across an interesting Canadian documentary. It doesn't suggest that Clinton was a Lizard person but that he might have been hypnotized by them during his 1990 campaign. He certainly looked hypnotized. And I've always thought that Larry King was a Lizard Person.....
------------
This is a partial transcript of a Canadian Documentary called Captive Minds-Hypnosis and Beyond
------------
[First 1 minute and 46 seconds]
In a covertly recorded off-air transmission from the Bush-Clinton Presidential election campaign of 1990, we can see that Bill Clinton was nothing more than a puppet to the puppet-masters which placed him in the White House. Bill Clinton's demeanor appears to be similar to a person under a hypnotic trance.

Bill Clinton campaign feed...

Clinton: This is great. I love these. (note: look at the really weird expression on his face..is this guy high on something..or what?).
Response: We can do another hour if you want. We start doing Georgia tomorrow.
---pause---
Clinton: Can we do anymore?
Response: We are setting up as many as we can.

Clinton: Can we do some Maryland, can we do those two Maryland?
Response: We can do Maryland if you want.

Clinton: We ought to do some more in Florida & Texas, too. Have we done all of Colorado today?
Response: Yeah, we got one more...
Clinton: Today?
----
(And, on Larry King Live during an off-air break):

King: It's crazy - Ted Turner changed the world. He's a big fan of yours.
Clinton: Is he?
King: He would-uh-serve your-you know what I mean.
Clinton: You're kidding.
King: Oh, you'd be surprised - he's ready... what's he got left in life to gain? I'd call him after you're elected. Think about it!
--pause--
Do dope. That's for sure. Great guy to work for too.
(end of break)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWJrUYPr6r4

The rest of the video is very interesting...might shock you..maybe not!

Kend
Kend's picture
We all ready have minimum

We all ready have minimum income it's called welfare. 

Aliceinwonderland
Aliceinwonderland's picture
 "…we subsidize big oil

 "…we subsidize big oil companies, and complain about the cost of providing food stamps for the poor."  AMEN, "goat-on-a-stick"!  - AIW

Palindromedary
Palindromedary's picture
Kend: Yes, it's called

Kend: Yes, it's called Corporate Welfare.

Wendalore
Wendalore's picture
What a lot of fun and funny

What a lot of fun and funny comments!
I don't have a cohesive POV to speak from, but anyway—re "Crime rates would likely decrease because people wouldn't need to steal to survive."  My first thought upon reading this was that 1/ many if not most people steal to get money for drugs.  Therefore, we would need to consider heroin clinics, even cocaine clinics, as well as methadone clinics, as part of the plan.  (and what about the more physically damaging drugs?) 2/ there are other people who steal in order to support "a lifestyle to which they would like to become accustomed." and which would be much grander than what they could get from their government income, (which I remember a fellow from I think Sweden? called "the dole." or it might have been the Netherlands. It was years ago. He said that he had lived "on the dole" for awhile, but became dissatisfied with his standard of living and so got a job)
One woman here talked about mental health. And what IS "mental health?" Where does dysfunctional behavior come from? Would people be content getting money from the government to live on? I've known people who certainly would not work if they didn't have to EAT.  Then the jobs they have to get lead them to a certain kind of happiness they would never have found if they had not had to mobilize themselves in order to be able to work.
We really don't know what motivates people. The rich greed-sayers believe that it IS greed that motivates people to work, and working makes people emotionally healthy.  But others say that working crushes the sense of self, unless it's a nourishing job. Can anyone say anything at all for sure about what motivates people to be self-actualizing?  I don't think we can. Some people feel sure that they know, but even those people haven't got solutions for what would create the "right" circumstances. Some people do well in one set of circumstances whereas that same set of circumstances flattens someone else.
The high mental health statistics reflect the fact that we don't know what is creating the problems of depression, anxiety, addiction, and other various and sundry personality disorders. Were people always this depressed? More? are they getting more mentally sick because of the lack of direction in the lives of individuals and/or families. HAVING to work to survive could be what diverts one's attention from trying to find a meaningful life or a sense of self without which we get depressed, which results in people who are too depressed to work or to look for a job.
It scares me to think of what it would be like if everybody could survive without working at Something. It's been true since the dawn of man that everyone has had to DO something to stay alive. It was one kind of thing for the rich, another for the rest etc. But we are in a pickle because the Greedy sent so many jobs overseas, that there aren't enough jobs to go around. On the other hand most of those jobs were the soul-killing type of jobs which people used to say started so much individual angst due to the lack of meaning in our lives.  It included the death of religion and the loss of the supportive neighborhood.
As I said, I don't have an integrated POV to come from.  I have so many thoughts and theories batting around in my mind that it'll probably take me more time than I have to develop one. As Tom Leher once said, "It is a sobering thought for me when I realize that when Mozart was my age, he had been dead for five years."
I do think there is not enough consideration given to the mysteries of human nature, particularly the fact some of the genes that most influence our behavior have been in the genetic make-up of our ancestors, including those way way back in the history of our species—not even early human-like beings, but simple mammals, even reptiles, and some of our automatic responses to circumstances are not appropriate for civilized living.
Folks who hit upon economic strategies to solve our society and personal dilemmas, usually don't take into account how humans mess everything up with their complicated up minds—that are mixtures of primitive instincts of complex thoughts.
Thom is such a good person himself that some of his economic solutions would work only if everyone were like him—a truly civilized human.   
  

Palindromedary
Palindromedary's picture
I just wonder, though, how

I just wonder, though, how many smokers would spend their food money, or the food money of their families, on cigarettes. That's probably one of the worst addictions, and the leading causes of lung cancer, but people who smoke often will not admit this.

I know that my mom, who was a smoker (so was my dad). Both had a really big problem with the idea of smoking marijuana. And my mom would never admit that smoking was bad for her...definitely not as bad as marijuana. After all, they were exposed to all of that anti-marijuana propaganda while being promised that "more doctors recommend camels cigarettes". And we are still being inundated by marketing hype that causes us to believe stupid things. But, my parents would never admit (well, maybe my dad would have) that smoking was all that bad.

Surprisingly enough, my mom outlived my dad by about 20 years. And I am now older by several years than my dad was when he died. It's kind of weird thinking about it. I smoked in my late teens and early twenties but quit cold turkey (that's really the only way to do it as far as I am concerned).

So, there are people out there who can't afford to buy food for their families (so they claim...and I have no doubt that many are right in that assertion). But, some of those same people can go out and buy all those expensive cigarettes. They add to the burden of the cost of medicine for all.

Heavily taxing these things like cigarettes and booze and even high sugar content drinks will not really deter people from buying and consuming them...but the tax man sure does take in more money.

Maybe what they should do is make all people have an identification card that allows them to buy cigarettes, or other tobacco products, providing they are not on welfare or food stamps or other socialized program. If you are on those programs then you can't buy cigarettes. Same thing with alcohol or other non-essential items...like big screen TVs. Heck I don't even have a big screen TV.

And when they do that, they should do similar things with Corporate Welfare Queens. Tax them heavily if they offshore jobs and make it illegal to send money out of the country.

Make companies doing business overseas have to get special permits and limit the amount of money they use in doing business overseas. They should put a limit on the amount of money the top executives of corporations or businesses get in compensation. And tax the heck out of them. After all, they have been screwing us for over 40 years now.

Aliceinwonderland
Aliceinwonderland's picture
   Wendalore sez: "What a lot

   Wendalore sez: "What a lot of fun and funny comments!"  We aim to please.  Thanks for the acknowledgement.

   Beyond that, there's lots of serious stuff in your post I feel compelled to answer, for what it's worth.  And from my perspective, if it wasn't for all the suffering and pain in our society, there wouldn't be such high demand (no pun intended!) for hard drugs.  I'm talking about a spiritual and emotional void so overwhelming, so hideous, as to create this unrelenting need for escape.  You'd be amazed how many addicts were abused as children, enduring horrible traumas of the sort that alter brain development and cripple the spirit.  Directly or indirectly, it relates to the uncertainty, stress and fear of living in a decaying empire where the socioeconomic system and culture are rigged against most of its people and as a direct consequence, toxic to family life.  Because even in the best of circumstances, raising children can be very hard.  When parents are over-stressed and ill equipped, it's the children who suffer the most.

  For a study in contrasts, imagine a society that is more inclusive, that's about opportunity for all and upward mobility, where the pursuit of happiness and simple human dignity are emphasized and nurtured.  Such a society would not create so many lost souls zoning out on lethal mind-numbing substances like heroin, frying their brains on crack and meth.  It all boils down to a dance with death, Wendalore.  But it's only a symptom, not the disease.

   Mental health is a general state of wellbeing that enables one to function and thrive with some sense of purpose and self worth.  That's how I'd describe it anyway.  It seems inevitable that a few people would be content living simpler lives on a government subsidy of some sort, sacrificing status and certain comforts for the freedom of not having to earn a living by conventional means.  I don't believe the value of human life should be contingent upon one's employability or role in the marketplace.  Speaking for myself, if I was financially independent or receiving such a subsidy, I could be quite content living the reclusive life of a writer or composer, unburdened with the necessity of selling my work for profit.  I'm not assuming those are the only circumstances in which I might thrive and be happy.  Never having had the choice, I'll never know for sure.  But the reality is that for a variety of reasons, not everyone is cut out to be a career person or entrepreneur, and function in the workforce.  Frankly, I've always had difficulty accepting, as inevitabe or necessary, a way of life where the vast majority of us must spend most of our days working ourselves half to death just to get by.  I don't think that is what life should be about.

   Left to their natural impulses, Wendalore, most people would choose to lead purposeful lives, whether in or outside the marketplace.  To be useful, to contribute to one's society and culture in a meaningful way that is appropriate to one's abilities and temperament, is a basic human need.  But I have never believed the sun rises & sets in the marketplace of goods & services.  There are other ways of contributing.  The failure of our capitalist culture to recognize value in anything outside the marketplace is a major factor behind the spiritual malaise feeding into the void I described earlier in this post.  In our current environment where for so many, working is more a form of bondage than self-empowerment or fulfillment, you're damn right it crushes the spirit.  In such an environment, "freedom" is just an abstraction.

   I don't think the problems you're describing are all that mysterious, Wendalore.  While certain traits, needs and inclinations are universal to humankind, each one of us is unique in aptitude, personality and temperament.  What suits one person just swimmingly could be torture for another.  We're not meant to all be cogs in the same old wheel with everyone in lockstep.  When there's not enough jobs for those who need and want to work, and most of us have to constantly struggle just to barely survive and function, and when the wealth we bust ass to create is stolen from us, and when so many are demoralized and frightened and isolated by poverty or the threat of poverty, you bet it takes a toll on mental health.  We should be working to live, not the other way around. 

   Why are you threatened by the prospect of a safety net that keeps people off the streets and protected from the elements, that catches them when they fall?  Do you really believe such a system would create a society comprised of nothing but deadbeats?  And what of this "death of religion" you're referring to?  Seems to me that with the steady erosion of that precious boundary separating church and state, religion has gotten too big for its britches.  Maybe religion needs to be brought down to size.  Creationism belongs in bible school, not the high school science lab.

   What is inappropriate to civilized life is a winner-take-all system of abuse and exploitation that serves only a wealthy few, at the expense of everyone else.  Long as this nightmare prevails, Wendalore, we will be plagued with drug addiction and mental health issues and crime and broken families and broken spirits.  - Aliceinwonderland

 

douglas m
I think the few that make the

I think the few that make the decisions for the rest of us in this country have a sick sense of worth from keeping us down, not to mention a monetary value that in reality is always empty. Sure it gives them a few more toys and a false sense of security.  To explore ideas like this and set the standard for the world would mean people who now value money and only spend it when there is fear (obvious from the way its spent) instead of value going to making its people the center of their strength, which it turn would increase their spending power and portfolio's. These type of people only value think groups that say control is best done by keeping the majority just under broke for maximum control. They dont have the guts and spine to try something new and more prosperous. They obviously believe fear is the only power, even they are ruled by it, sad.          

  Even though its a 100% great idea that would work.  To walk in a world where evolution was to better ourselves and those we love,   instead of be a fear crawler has got to be a good thing. Real security comes from helping each other and caring for each other,  not distancing ourselves and buying more toys that may or may not work.

michaelmoore052
michaelmoore052's picture
I think it would have to be

I think it would have to be coupled with wage and price controls to fend off what would surely lead to runaway inflation.

If only you could outlaw Greed.

Palindromedary
Palindromedary's picture
Of course, drug abuse is not

Of course, drug abuse is not totally attributed to people who are poor. There are plenty of filthy rich people...who use and abuse drugs as well. Actors and actresses, top corporate executives, Wall street types, Presidents and Congress critters all are famous for having drug problems. I think that people get in to using drugs, and then get hooked on them, not because they are poor or any other excuse than that they are curious and just want to experience getting high. And once they get hooked, they're hooked, and they continue to use them not necessarily because they are trying to forget the past or the present. They get into it, initially, because they think it is fun or they are pressured into it by peers. Same goes for smoking or drinking liquor. People don't have to have some terrible condition, mental or physical, or poor to become a drug user or alcoholic or lung cancer waiting to happen. In fact, if people really couldn't afford to buy these things in the first place it would be much harder for them to get them.

Just watch the first 2 minutes of this video, the one I mentioned before (and below), and tell me that Clinton was not either hypnotized or on some kind of drug....the first part.. maybe the first 40 seconds..not the King interview.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWJrUYPr6r4

FractionallyUnnerved
FractionallyUnnerved's picture
 Good weekend to All  America

 Good weekend to All

 America has 30 million in need of a "living wage" say 10% of population using the (Debt interest imaging) method ,450 billion in interest becomes 9 million little house's 50,000 per.bought and paid for every year  Just put a Freeze due to Economic Terror  reduce the Bankster FED profit margin take away corporate wellfare.Basically retool the system. a shut down just like the World had no choice but to do durring WW2.  Gwp skim bankster's beware!!

 off topic :Marc last week mentioned the greatfull dead for our listening pleasure thumbs up great tunes for the weekend!or chill time   April 1 is in 3day's some might remember Jokerman by Bob dylan the travelling wilbury's are great too Cheers All

DAnneMarc
DAnneMarc's picture
Wendalore wrote:One woman

Wendalore wrote:
One woman here talked about mental health. And what IS "mental health?" Where does dysfunctional behavior come from?

Wendalore ~ We are a product of our environment. Every issue that you spoke of, drug abuse, mental illness, worker lethargy, crime, death of religion (the spirit), and depression are elements and phenomena that exist and prosper in certain types of environments and are directly proportional to the size of population per square foot and the type of economy. IE The bigger the population per square foot, the worse the problems. Industrial economies--as opposed to agricultural economies--and the creation of the nuclear family are the true cause of these issues. These issues were--and are--unheard of in rural, agricultural, extended family communities. An agricultural extended family is the product of a Gemeinschaft society. The industrial nuclear family is a product of a Gesellschaft society. If you google Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft and look at the wikipedia definition you will see how social structure affects all the issues you ask about.

Kend
Kend's picture
I guess I shouldnt assume you

I guess I shouldnt assume you have the same system as we have in Canada. Here if you can't provide for yourself the tax payers give you a living wage. Which is done through welfare or social assistance. . is it not that way down there?

Aliceinwonderland
Aliceinwonderland's picture
You're right, Palin, not all

You're right, Palin, not all drug abusers are poor.  But not all spiritual and emotional malaise is felt by the poor either.  And I'm talking about drug abuse, not drug use.  Unlike many, I draw a distinction there.  - AIW

FractionallyUnnerved
FractionallyUnnerved's picture
 Drug use by the rich is

 Drug use by the rich is prescibed by certain hollywood Dr.'s cocaine you name it. if their caught they pay a fine and go to Betty Ford .while por man stuck in for profit jails.Drug abuse should be handled as a medical problem, to add on that topic.

 Palin I checked back about my coment please respect my beleifs lol I did not mean to imply you had not. Acharya has a little video it's called please respect my religion http://youtu.be/3Dy1Z8IEjIg that was where i was going with that.and iagree topics should very well be put to scrutiny.

   Watched that mind control vid note the focus the vulcans like cheney and bush hammering terror.For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.my point being now that the public is brain washed and waking up to that fact why can't Occuppy focus the economic Terror  back in their faces I thought of a method (Debt interest imaging) to drive home the point, as those in power have done so often. lets get ahold of say Peter Joseph of Zeitgeist and inspire him to do a vid on the approach,technique .comments?thanks

 

 

 

FractionallyUnnerved
FractionallyUnnerved's picture
 Alice hopfully with thoughts

 Alice hopfully with thoughts like this " But not all spiritual and emotional malaise is felt by the poor either." we can get those gentried  folks to see some of Occupy's points.cheers 

Aliceinwonderland
Aliceinwonderland's picture
P.S. One more point, Palin.

P.S. One more point, Palin.  Rich or poor, we still occupy the same decaying, dying empire, equivalent to a sinking ship.  The negativity from that permeates even the not-so-poor segments.  Ultimately we all go down together.  In the end, being the last to perish might be the only advantage remaining for the privileged.  - AIW

Palindromedary
Palindromedary's picture
Very true! AIW Very true!

Very true! AIW Very true!

Kend
Kend's picture
That is scary. 

That is scary. 

Palindromedary
Palindromedary's picture
Kend: What was scary? That

Kend: What was scary? That filthy rich people use and abuse drugs or that video on Clinton or my kitty avatar? Did you watch the first two minutes on that video? Weird, huh?
Clinton sure looked like he was on something or hypnotized or something. It's like he was in a daze. And then the part where Larry King interviewed Clinton and what they said and how they said it. Something very fishy about that!

The rest of the video was pretty scarey too! Although, it was kind of cheesy flashing that image of a death scull.

Kend
Kend's picture
Palin, drugs like cancer do

Palin, drugs like cancer do not discriminate. They don't care how old, what color, male/female etc. they both suck. Kitty avatar? I thought that was you. LOL. No it was the Clinton thing. I am going to assume he was just tired, some of there days can be very long. But the thought someone is controlling him is scary. then again the guy was stupid enough to take advantage of a young intern and then lie about. Maybe he was high all the time. No couldn't be. He didn't inhale. 

I will never understand what Americans seen in the guy. He didn't do anything in eight years. Maybe that was a good  thing. 

chuckle8
chuckle8's picture
Kend -- It is not that way

Kend -- It is not that way down here.  Ironically, with regards to other statements in this blog, Clinton ended "Welfare as we know it".  Before Clinton is was probably like the Canadian plan.  Clinton said welfare should end after 5 years.  Clinton supported the Walmart Business Model.  That is, he thought the way to fight dependency on welfare was to encourage corps to hire people at very low wages.  The govt would make up the difference with food stamps.

chuckle8
chuckle8's picture
DAnneMarc -- I thought using

DAnneMarc -- I thought using Wikipedia to prove anything was equivalent to using Hitler.  In any case, you should watch the following TED presentation.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson

It seems a more common cause of all the problems of which you and Wendalore speak, is wealth/income inequality.  Of course, such inequality is heavily correlated to overpopulation.  However, I think R. Wilkinson has examples of overpopulation with wealth inequality that do not suffer those problems.

Also, solving the wealth inequality problem seems more acceptable than solving the overpopulation problem.

DAnneMarc
DAnneMarc's picture
chuckle8 ~ I assure you I've

chuckle8 ~ I assure you I've put a lot of very deep thought into this problem. It is industrialization that created the nuclear family and it is the nuclear family through with these problems fester. The main reason is because of the family element known as social cohesion. In agricultural families the bonds the members share are mutually dependent and long term. It is the exact opposite in industrial nuclear families.It is In these smaller sized families that members actually repel each other. Children are considered property and expected to become self sufficient as soon as possible and leave the family unit. Agricultural families are the exact opposite. Members rely on each other; and in turn, share responsibility, respect, and self worth. Members are expected to contribute, are appreciated, and the unit is strongest if members stay with it for the long term. Economic disparity has little to do with their characteristics. Even extended families who have nothing still have the strength of their bonds that not only overcome all the industrialized problems that I and Wendalore speak, but make such problems seem impossible to comprehend for most members; and, I have personally observed the evidence of this in both societies; not only in America, but in Mexico as well.

PS I'm not using Wikipedia to prove anything. I am only using the website to explain the definition of the terms Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. Once understood these definitions can be applied to what is observable in the real world; and then, no further proof is necessary.

Palindromedary
Palindromedary's picture
It is much harder for kids on

It is much harder for kids on a farm to go out get into trouble at an earlier age...fewer adverse influences as there would be in a town or city. Of course, when they get into their teens and start driving they can veer away from parental guidance. In towns or cities you don't even need a car to run into many bad influences. And, people who grow up on the farm often inherits the farm when their parents die.

Kend
Kend's picture
chuck so does welfare end

chuck so does welfare end after five years? I find that hard to believe. So what do they do? So why is it that every one on the blog blames the Rep. for the poor having it so bad. Here in Canada you don't have to work a day in your life And you have a home, food, healthcare, education and if you live in the province of BC. You even get free drugs. I should be careful what I say there is probaly a huge line up at the border. The down side is we have taxes as high as some of the people on welfare. 

2950-10K
2950-10K's picture
A worldwide universal living

A worldwide universal living wage is the way to go. "Officially" eliminate slavery for the first time in the history of mankind, a global economic Magna Carta so to speak, what the F  is taking so long? ...... it's long overdue! ...the piggish amongst us will just have to be content with fairness!

Kend
Kend's picture
so 10k what is the difference

so 10k what is the difference between a living wage for all and communism? 

2950-10K
2950-10K's picture
Palindromedary...4114.....gla

Palindromedary...4114.....glad to see you bucking the system on your graphic!!!!!!    4114 ...palindromic sums LOL...did a paper on them in 7th grade....for real!

2950-10K
2950-10K's picture
Reply to 45....The difference

Reply to 45....The difference between greed and enlightenment!

Kend
Kend's picture
10k Please explain it ilike a

10k Please explain it ilike a communism for dummies book . I have no idea what you just said.

2950-10K
2950-10K's picture
Kend ....don't give me

Kend ....don't give me that....you know as well as I, the so called communism you are referring to was a fraud....greedy power hungry evil souls, just like those who currently practice free market capitalism!

DAnneMarc
DAnneMarc's picture
2950-10K wrote:A worldwide

2950-10K wrote:
A worldwide universal living wage is the way to go.

2950-10K ~ You have to interpret everything Kend says. What he really wants to ask you is, "What's in it for me?"

2950-10K
2950-10K's picture
Let me put it this

Let me put it this way....oppression for self gain has no political/philosophical affiliation....it can attach itself to even socialism when the vast majority has no control over the individuals chosen to represent them. When this happens, we the people must correct it with political action ......OR as a last resort,,,,REVOLUTION! 

Make a universal living wage law!!!! Sure this will piss of the unpatriotic United States citizens who layoff here and outsource for mega profit......too god damn bad if they can't handle fairness and treating all people on this planet fairly!