Why is this forum so active?

[mollysmiles]

Originally Posted by Zymer

Seeker, if your spelling and punctuation weren't so good, I'd almost think you were someone else.

...it seems to me that the combination of low wages, and high prices make one a slave to the internal combustion engine and the oil industry.

Low wages and high prices don't make one a "slave" to the automobile. You can buy cheap vehicles. They may not be pretty but they'll get you where you need to go. On the other hand, I was in Lancaster, PA not so long ago and the Amish folks I met seemed to be doing OK without cars.

If you wanted to argue that government mandated insurance and emissions regulations place a high burden on lower income automobile owners, I'd have to agree.

Nobody wants their area suburbanized and yet they seem to prefer to use their funds on gas and vehicles to get to shops in other areas where the choices are better and/or prices are less.

I can't see what you're saying here. If you don't *want* your area "suburbanized" then it makes sense that you'd have to go elsewhere to get variety.

Big stores that offer lower prices do so because they can purchase goods to sell at a lower price, due to the economy of scale. But the store must be located in an area that has a large enough population to support it.

A smaller, localized store will have higher prices because they can't buy in the quantities needed to get the discount from wholesale. On the other hand, you don't need to spend as much on fuel to get there. It's a trade-off.

What bothers me about this is the elitism involved. I identify strongly with the rural poor and on the whole, they are the ones who suffer from limited options the same way they do in the inner city.

Elitism? What "elitism"? Why do you "identify" with the "poor"?

If you are poor, it logically follows that you are going to have "limited options". Do you think that the "elite" are conspiring to keep the "poor" as they are? Why are they "poor"? Does someone "make" them poor?

Now, the rural poor are unlikely to be participating on a computer discussion group...

Depends on where you're at. I looked at a house in, New Sweden I think it was, a two family occupied by people receiving government subsidies for rent and food. There was trash strewn about and the property didn't look all that great. You'd be inclined to call them "poor", right?

Should I feel sorry for them? Nope, not going to. They had a number of snowmobiles and ATVs, as well as fairly late-model cars. Inside was was even more disparity- the latest in plasma television with satelite receivers, and modern computers with LCD monitors and internet access.

Their cars were better than mine and they have more toys than I do. I'm starting to wonder who the "sucker" is.

Everyone has choices. You can choose where to live, you can choose to work, you can CHOOSE to be "poor".

...but when you are singing the praises of the simple life, take a moment to reflect on the difficult lifestyle of many in the country who love it just as much as you do but are getting by with so much less.

If we CHOOSE to live the "simple life", what of it? I really don't see where you're going here.

In my area there was even a backlash movement against the wealthy building big homes outside the cities with the idea that rural people should have to pay for mail delivery because they choose to move where it costs more to bring them their mail.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. The amount that "rural" people "pay" for mail delivery is the same as anyone else. The US Postal Service doesn't charge them to deliver mail, the postage is paid by those who SEND the mail.

In fact, the USPS is one of the few government agencies that actually turns a profit (in spite of a mandate that they be revenue-neutral).

The only food store within walking distance was a bait/video/deli shop with high prices. For anything else we had to drive 20+ miles to a small expensive grocery store, all on slow, winding back roads, or 40 miles, about a third on winding back roads, in the other direction for a Kroger. 40 miles for jobs or to a hospital/doctor.

So? What do you want, giant warehouse discount stores and medical complexes every two miles? That's not going to happen (at least I *hope* not). If you live in the country you have to travel to where the *things* are, or have them delivered. This isn't any different than it has been for hundreds of years, the only difference is the transportation you use to get to the goods or to get the goods to you.

Whether you jump in a pick-up truck or a buckboard once a month to go into town for supplies it's the same difference. Automobiles need fuel, maintainence and insurance, horses need feed, shoes and vets. It's going to cost you either way.

They would never move because their families had lived there for generations...

So, whose fault is that?

...and for generations they had lived in poverty, in bad health...

Again, whose fault is that? I've lived in places where the pay was low, and worked two or three jobs to get by. When I got tired of it, I got up off my ***** and went where the prospects were brighter.

...with indifferent education...

How much education do you need? Once you've got the three "R"s down (readin', ritin' and cipherin' as Jethro Bodine would say) you can go and learn just about anything you want...if you have a mind to.

We have libraries full of books that (*gasp*) anybody can go into, and sit down and LEARN.

...being ruthlessly exploited by the factories.

Hunh? What? Next, I suppose we'll be talking about "living wage"? The business owner contracts with the employees to pay a wage to get a job done. If you don't like it you are perfectly free to go somewhere else.

In our area, the immigrants are the most entrepreneurial so little stores and restaurants have sprouted all over like violets in the spring. I can take a small vacation to another country even though I can't leave my animals to go on a trip. It's really a great place to raise kids or to retire. Too bad I can't afford it, with its low wage jobs, any more.)

You could learn a LOT from those "immigrants". In fact the answer to all your problems is in the lesson that those immigrants are showing you, if you'd only open your eyes and see it/learn it.

They come here with little or no money, not knowing the language, they start out living in squalid conditions that most of us would consider horrendous...and they WORK.

They work hard, they work well. They pool and SAVE their money instead of wasting it paying $100 a month or more for cable/satelite TV and other luxuries. When they have enough money, they start a business or buy a franchise and they continue to work...eventually they become wealthy.

They understand the opportunities that are available here for anyone who wants to take advantage of them. And, I don't doubt, more than a few of them likely laugh at those who sit around starving in the land of plenty.

GREAT post....exactly what I would have written had I been coherent....well, not really, you did much better but I can pretend!!

[Mwatch]

Originally Posted by happyappy

Thomas Jefferson is the most famous of the original liberals—and member of the Democratic-Republican Party. He’s my personal hero. And it’s widely accepted that he was one of America’s greatest thinkers in our short history.

I don’t HOW it can be done, or even IF it can be done, but somehow those of us who are considered liberals by Jefferson’s standards have to separate ourselves from what is considered mainstream liberalism and the stigma with which it has been stuck. However, the definition seems to change, sometimes to a great degree, from conversation to conversation as to the terms conservative and liberal. It makes labeling somewhat useless in reality, and it certainly does skew conversations once those labels are used or assumed without saying.

If some new label could be attached such as paleo-liberal or pseudo-liberal or some such thing, then I could belong to that group even though I tree hug and bark eat.

The liberal/conservative tag perpetuates the game played by the millionaires in D.C. It works well with the TV generation. Where do you think slaveholder Jefferson belonged? Psuedo-liberal or neer-do-well conservative?

[dramamama6685]

Originally Posted by Mwatch

The liberal/conservative tag perpetuates the game played by the millionaires in D.C. It works well with the TV generation. Where do you think slaveholder Jefferson belonged? Psuedo-liberal or neer-do-well conservative?

I agree about the T.V. game. Why is it we never hear about 3rd parties until we see the ballot? Money talks, all else walks. Even if the 3rd party is the 3rd largest, the financial backing has not been there in the past and those holding debates will not include all viable candidates. I have learned to check out the league of women's voters site as well as votesmart.org. Both non partisan and very telling.