ping: Nate .. old baja pics

TBone wrote:

> Since their standard of living is so much lower than ours, I would say that
> their poverty level is also way lower than ours.

In comparison perhaps but their needs and priorities are vastly
different than ours. People need far less in Mexico in order to be happy.


> How would you know Miles? Do you have family that live that way as well

I spend several hours a day doing volunteer charity work for numerous
families in just such a situation. So yes, I most certainly do know. I
would think you being the compassionate liberal would be doing even more
and get to know the people you're guessing about.



>Does Mexico have all of these social programs?

They're smarter than the USA and do not believe in oppression through
social handouts that have never done anything to reduce poverty. Yet
they do have numerous social programs to help people to help themselves.
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

"Miles" <nope RemoveThis @nopers.com> wrote in message
news:7Q5vj.14758$497.13862@newsfe14.phx...
> TBone wrote:
>
>> Yes, you did. According to you, most Mexicans are doing quite well and
>> simply choose to live the way that they do due to "cultural differences".
>
> Thats true. Most Mexicans are doing well per their needs and culture.

Once again Miles, you make statements that you can't possibly hope to back
up. Even the links that you provide go against you.

> They're mostly happy, have roof over their heads and food on the table.

How do you know? Did you interview the majority of the population?

> You seem to feel most are dirt poor and the countries run down and
> corrupt.

I never said any such thing but they do have a much lower standard of living
than we do and a large population at the poverty level and lower. You seem
to be happy with the delusion that they want it this way but the numbers of
them crossing the border say's something very different.

>
>> Most no, but 40% is still damn high
>
> Most of that 40% are not dirt poor, starving etc.

LOL, oh really! Care to back that up. Of course you don't because you
can't.

> Most in the USA below the poverty level are not dirt poor, homeless,
> starving etc.

Again, let's see you back that up. Sure, there are some scum that scam the
system and many are not homeless or starving because of social programs but
they are still dirt poor and are in many cases trapped by the very system
that they now depend on not to be starving or homeless.

> What does poverty mean to you TBone?

To me it means not having enough to meet even basic needs without being
strapped down by some gubberment handouts and red tape. What does it mean
to you Miles?

> What does it mean to the Federal Gov. whom sets the $ amount to define it?

Probably the amount needed to just scrape by in the lowest cost area in the
country.

>
>>> Mexico exports its poverty to the USA as a way of solving the problem.
>>
>> LOL, another statement that you cannot possibly hope to back up. This is
>> your opinion Miles and nothing more.
>
> It's your opinion that those coming to the USA represent a cross section
> of Mexico rather than the poor, under educated etc.

I would say that it is much more likely to be closer to mine than yours but
even if you are the one who is correct, why are there so many of them and if
Mexico is such a booming place with free housing and health care, why would
they rick it all to come here and why so many of them. You deleted the
question the last time I posted it. How about answering it if you know so
much about the country as you claim.

>
>> I would say that the higher percentage are exactly that but why are there
>> so many of them Miles?
>
> 11 million (well thats just a guess, could be higher, could be lower, who
> knows) came here over a 40 year period. Whats the population of Mexico?

Once again, more meaningless numbers. Unless the flow has been the same
every year for those 40 years, what exactly is your point?

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

TBone wrote:
>
> I never said any such thing but they do have a much lower standard of living
> than we do

Never said otherwise. Of course Mexico has a lower standard of living.
But that doesn't mean people aren't happy. They don't need the things
we take for granted here in order to be happy. We're spoiled.

> To me it means not having enough to meet even basic needs

The US poverty level is $21,000 for a typical family. Certainly not
much $'s but I know quite a number of families of 4 making about that
and doing ok. They have an apartment, car and food. They're strapped
and penny pinch on a daily basis but they do alright and are not dirt
poor and starving and homeless nor are they on social handouts.

> Mexico is such a booming place with free housing and health care, why would
> they rick it all to come here and why so many of them.

Who said booming? I never did. I simply stated that most in Mexico are
not dirt poor, starving and homeless. Most do just fine for their needs.
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

"Miles" <nope DeleteThis @nopers.com> wrote in message
news:bN6vj.44929$ov5.9233@newsfe15.phx...
> TBone wrote:
>>
>> I never said any such thing but they do have a much lower standard of
>> living than we do
>
> Never said otherwise. Of course Mexico has a lower standard of living.
> But that doesn't mean people aren't happy. They don't need the things we
> take for granted here in order to be happy. We're spoiled.

What people need and what they want are to very different things Miles. If
people were just happy with what they need, there would be no rich people
and greed would not exist. Just because they are used to living well below
what we would consider poverty doesn't mean tha they want to stay that way.
Are you happy now Miles? Are you still trying to grow your business to make
more money? Why Miles?

>
>> To me it means not having enough to meet even basic needs
>
> The US poverty level is $21,000 for a typical family. Certainly not much
> $'s but I know quite a number of families of 4 making about that and doing
> ok.

That depends on their ambition and where they live miles. Sure, there are
areas where you can survive on that level of income but they are trapped
there. So much for freedom.

> They have an apartment, car and food. They're strapped and penny pinch on
> a daily basis but they do alright and are not dirt poor and starving and
> homeless nor are they on social handouts.

I don't think that they are overly happy about being 1 paycheck away from
being on the street either. They may not have a bad attitiude and are
trying to make the best out of the situation but I can bet that if an
oppertunity would come up to double or even tripple their income, they would
jump on it in a heartbeat. Just like the ones comming over here from
Mexico.

>
>> Mexico is such a booming place with free housing and health care, why
>> would they rick it all to come here and why so many of them.
>
> Who said booming? I never did. I simply stated that most in Mexico are
> not dirt poor, starving and homeless. Most do just fine for their needs.

Yes you did Miles. If most of the population is doing just fine for their
needs, then the economy is booming. That is not the case there or even here
right now. Your attitude is really why so many hate the rich as many of
them have the same one. Just because people may smile sometimes when they
are just getting by doesn't mean that they are happy with their situation or
don't want anything more. Many of the people that you are talking about are
not happy and are in fear of losing even the little bit that they do have
and wonder if they can ever retire. This is NOT doing just fine and if the
opportunity or even perceived opportunity to improve that situation appears,
many are going to jump on it. It is not just the uneducated and lazy that
are floodong our borders, it is the ambitious and the ones that want a
better life and are willing to take the risk to achieve it as well and are
probably the greater percentage now.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

"miles" <nope DeleteThis @nopers.com> wrote in message
news:lRNuj.21198$n42.7398@newsfe08.phx...
> TBone wrote:
>
>> Actually Miles. I was talking about this country.
>
> Hatred and false promises from liberal politicians.

LOL, sorry Miles, but the right are the kings of hatred. Look what they did
to this country now and what they did to Clinton out of nothing but fear.
This country was and to a degree still is a laughing stock to many other
countries due to that.

> They have not delivered what they campaigned to do. And sorry TBone, it's
> not because of Reps that the Dems have not delivered.

Oh yea, and the right always has, LOL! Sorry Miles, but it very much has to
do with the right and the idiot that we have for a President.

> They haven't even tried. But they have tried to do even worse. If it
> weren't for the Reps our spending would be even higher than it is. The
> Reps are horrible but the Dems are not the answer.

Yea, right. How exactly are they going to do anything without spending
money? I guess that you would rather do as our president does and just take
the money away from those that need it the most like the billions he wants
to take from Medicare and Medicade to fund his bogus war instead of raising
taxes of those that can afford it the most. Since most of them are
Republicans, they like you should be more than willing to support the war
your God started.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

TBone wrote:

> Just because they are used to living well below
> what we would consider poverty doesn't mean tha they want to stay that way.

I see. So they need liberals like yourself to keep telling them how
miserable they are. Everyone strives for more. But they aren't
miserable. They're generally happy. You seem to think everyone needs to
live how we do in the USA or they can't possibly be happy. Sometimes I
think they have the better life. Simpler, quieter and focus on the
little things in life instead of cable TV and internet.

> Are you happy now Miles?

Sure the heck am. Enjoying life. Hope you are too.


> Are you still trying to grow your business to make
> more money? Why Miles?

You have a problem with growth? Oh ya, must be greed. No TBone, my
salary has gone up an average of around 2-3% per year, often less than
inflation. Companies growth has been 10-12% per year. But I'm sure
you'll figure out a way that must be greed. Sigh.

> Sure, there are
> areas where you can survive on that level of income but they are trapped
> there. So much for freedom.

As Janis says, Freedoms just another word for having nothing left to
lose. I know many at around the poverty level that I envy. They are
quite happy. Happier than many middle and upper class. You seem to
live in a materialistic world and can't imagine how people could be
happier enjoying the little things in life. They dont have nor
necessarily want cell phones, cable tv, etc. You must think the Amish
are miserable and need your liberal help.

> Yes you did Miles. If most of the population is doing just fine for their
> needs, then the economy is booming.

Huh? Um, if you say so Tom!! Can anyone translate this rhetoric??
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

TBone wrote:

> Really, name them.

Yes Mexico REALLY does have some good welfare programs. The Progresa
program for starters. It is a direct cash handout mostly to women with
children in the very poorest of regions. It gives them cash they need
for food etc. However, it requires that their kids go to school rather
than work the fields. The intent is to educate theses kids so they do
not end up on welfare later in life themselves.
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

tred and false promises from liberal politicians.
>
> LOL, sorry Miles, but the right are the kings of hatred. Look what they did
> to this country now and what they did to Clinton out of nothing but fear.

Clinton deserved it. No president should lie under oath to a grand jury
no matter what the circumstances are and people like you make excuses
for him to do so. I know you loved Clinton but he was horrible. The
economy had nothing to do with any thing he himself did. And it was a
doomed economy anyways no matter what your liberal bandwagon rhetoric says.

> This country was and to a degree still is a laughing stock to many other
> countries due to that.

Too bad. Clinton sold us out to China and N. Korea and you just shrug
your shoulders and laugh at that. It's a sad day when politicians sell
out to other countries out of fear of being laughed at.

> Oh yea, and the right always has, LOL! Sorry Miles, but it very much has to
> do with the right and the idiot that we have for a President.

lol, everythings the rights and Bush's fault. Geez Tbone, typical
liberal to always blame others. The Dems have not delivered on their
promises. They have made no attempt to. Heck, they blasted Bush at his
budget cuts wanting to spend even more. They campaigned to get the
budget cut...ya, it's Bush's fault they wish to spend considerably more
than he does.

> Yea, right. How exactly are they going to do anything without spending
> money?

Huh? I see. The way to make things right is to spend more money. Good
grief. Only in a liberals world!! The Dems Pelosi and company
campaigned to CUT spending. They named several areas they wished to
trim from the budget. Yet, they did the opposite. They wanted to
increase the budget considerably. Your ilk blasts Bush for spending too
much then rants that to make things better we need to spend more. Too
funny.


> I guess that you would rather do as our president does and just take
> the money away from those that need it the most like the billions he wants
> to take from Medicare and Medicade to fund his bogus war instead of raising
> taxes of those that can afford it the most. Since most of them are
> Republicans, they like you should be more than willing to support the war
> your God started.

The war isn't part of the Budget the Dems wish to increase. No matter
where you make cuts somebody isn't going to like it. Yet the Dems
capaigned to do just that and then reversed once they got into power and
you sit here and defend them on both what they campaigned on and what
they are doing. To faced Tbone!

>
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

"Miles" <nope.DeleteThis@nopers.com> wrote in message
news:ixovj.14826$497.4790@newsfe14.phx...
> TBone wrote:
>
>> Really, name them.
>
> Yes Mexico REALLY does have some good welfare programs. The Progresa
> program for starters. It is a direct cash handout mostly to women with
> children in the very poorest of regions. It gives them cash they need for
> food etc. However, it requires that their kids go to school rather than
> work the fields. The intent is to educate theses kids so they do not end
> up on welfare later in life themselves.


The only problem with this is that this program didn't even start until 1997
but thanks for proving my point once again. Proponents of Progresa say the
program works because it attacks the source of low school attendance in
Mexico: low family income. Families in poor countries prefer to send their
children to school but cannot live without the income their children
provide. I guess that all of the families in Mexico are not fat and happy
like you suggest after all.


--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

TBone wrote:

> The only problem with this is that this program didn't even start until 1997
> but thanks for proving my point once again. Proponents of Progresa say the
> program works because it attacks the source of low school attendance in
> Mexico: low family income. Families in poor countries prefer to send their
> children to school but cannot live without the income their children
> provide. I guess that all of the families in Mexico are not fat and happy
> like you suggest after all.

Sigh. Never said all. Every family in the USA isn't as well. There
are poor in every country of the world. You ask "REALLY?" and attempted
to discount the fact decent welfare that helps people rather sustain as
our programs do, does exist in Mexico. Now you spin it with your
rhetoric as usual! It exists Tom!!!

The programs are aimed at the poorest of Mexicans in remote village type
towns. Not the cities where most people live. They're also building
schools in these areas as many such regions are so remote its often too
far for kids to travel to a school.
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

TBone wrote:

> How do you know this Miles? The fact is that you don't and I would say that
> many of them are not happy.

How do you know the Tom? Fact is you don't. You guess as you always do.

> Sure, many if not most can find some joy in
> their lives but that far from makes them truly happy.

Yes, they need liberals to tell them they are miserable and what they
need to be happy. Typical liberal absurdity at its worst.


> You are a bit paranoid Miles. My point is that even though your company is
> doing well, you continue to work to make it bigger.

Now just why would I do that Tom? I do so to be able to give more to
others. Something a 'compassionate' liberal can't comprehend. I've
spent almost 30% of my own money out of pocket directly helping others.
That doesn't include donations to charity groups. How are you doing?
Oh ya, I must be greedy too as you say so often.


As I said Miles, this
> is human nature and the people of Mexico are also human and despite you
> complete bullshit, also strive to better themselves.

I strive to give to others. Always have, always will. Try it Tom. It's
very rewarding.

> But you are still the definition of the typical ignorant and greedy right
> that thinks the rest of the world is just stupid.

No Tom that would be you who thinks others are stupid. You think they
need you to tell them they're not really happy.
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

"miles" <nope.TakeThisOut@nopers.com> wrote in message
news:Kvtvj.15405$H05.307@newsfe06.phx...
> TBone wrote:
>
>> The only problem with this is that this program didn't even start until
>> 1997 but thanks for proving my point once again. Proponents of Progresa
>> say the program works because it attacks the source of low school
>> attendance in Mexico: low family income. Families in poor countries
>> prefer to send their children to school but cannot live without the
>> income their children provide. I guess that all of the families in
>> Mexico are not fat and happy like you suggest after all.
>
> Sigh. Never said all. Every family in the USA isn't as well. There are
> poor in every country of the world. You ask "REALLY?" and attempted to
> discount the fact decent welfare that helps people rather sustain as our
> programs do, does exist in Mexico. Now you spin it with your rhetoric as
> usual! It exists Tom!!!

You have mentioned one Miles and it's only around 10 years old. What else
do they offer? I agree that our programs don't work as they are but people
like you would rether eliminate them and let the people starve rather than
fix them because fixing them might initially cost some money.


> The programs are aimed at the poorest of Mexicans in remote village type
> towns. Not the cities where most people live. They're also building
> schools in these areas as many such regions are so remote its often too
> far for kids to travel to a school.

LOL, it has little to do with distance and more to do with earning enough
money to live otherwise all they would need to do is build the schools and
it is not targeted to those remote village type towns because one of the
requirements is that the children remain in school and how exactly are they
going to get there. You really need to get your facts straight Miles.

--
If at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics 

TBone wrote:

> You have mentioned one Miles and it's only around 10 years old. What else
> do they offer? I agree that our programs don't work as they are but people
> like you would rether eliminate them and let the people starve rather than
> fix them because fixing them might initially cost some money.

I've always said I am all for social programs that help people get off
of welfare. I am against social programs that do nothing but oppress
and keep people dependent.
 >> Stay informed about: ping: Nate .. old baja pics