EXCELLENT POINT, Cross! I'm so glad you are thinking critically- the definition doesn't matter in the concrete sense. What matters is the VIEW of the definition and how that will either move/ not move people. You know, I am surprised no one has brought up the impact of NGOs yet.
Yeah... you are stretching it BUT I think it could be argued that reactionary stances like the one you cited in the last couple of sentences could polarize the US (as it is doing now) and cause a stalemate in the White House, stopping considerable action to take place. Think impacts, Clay. There is a given moral obligation to help the poor (unless you go Malthus on this one--I wouldnt suggest it). BUT at what cost? Linking social services to communism is a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG stretch and you'd get hammered on links and internal links. Only if you went with the polarizing argument would you be able to launch this type of debate.
<sigh> Hmm...stoic, policy-minded, and without opinion.... </sigh>
Ha! It censored you word CLASS because it has *$$ in it. Too funny! Silly blog.
So here is a question for you Ladrum-- how low does the US lower the poverty line to make it actual poverty? should we let them starve to death in the street before we take action?
Blanton---
THIS IS DIRECTLY FROM YOUR CARD>> what is your opinion? don't post card evidence for this one- we are all familiar with it. What is your actual response?
Regan--- Aff has no burden to define poverty other than the OPR-- if they were to use some other abstract figure, they could open themselves up to some nasty T arguments. I doubt anyone would do that. Still, even if you attack their def. you need to also attack the actual IMPACT of action. You know?
Again-- I think you are simplifying a very complex, dehumanizing issue. Poverty isn't just a flat number. It is a social issue as well. It isn't about inherency anymore. We know poverty has existed since man learned to trade. The question, how do we as a society solveand if we dnt what are the moral implications?
Ok-- LOTS and LOTS of loaded statements here: "when the entire economy is being dragged down by people who come to America for handouts." Be careful...this is definitely debateable!
Hmmm...how ideological of you. I think this relates back to that Impact takeout from the packet. the US's version of poverty may be slightly skewed BUT you can't blatantly dismiss poverty as an issue that doesn't affect indivdual rights, especially when so many of those in povety are children.
Jeff- this sounds like the beginning of a good Kritik argument. Ask Bishop about how/why
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Medley