The human toll of this heartless government policy was illustrated on this Labor Day weekend, when six Chicago siblings, aged three to fourteen, perished in an apartment fire. The source of the fire proved to be the candles this poor family was using for light because they had been without electricity since May.
This image should shatter media depictions of the U.S. as a predominantly “consumer society.” Those in upper income levels have certainly engaged in a “consumer spending spree” over the last several years. But those in the lower echelons have been struggling to survive. Class stratification has not been this pronounced since the late 1920s.
2006-09-08 07:04:00 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
bildymooner - you are scum.
2006-09-08 07:20:07 · update #1
Perhaps US gov. has an excuse to spend countless money to invade Iraq!
2006-09-08 07:09:59 · answer #1 · answered by Ahmad 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Why do poor people feel that they have the right to have too many kids to support?
This is true particularly amongst hispanics who often, despite their poverty, insist on having more children than they can support.
This in my mind is a form of child abuse. The government isn't here to let people procreate irresponsibly and to pick up the tab.
What does this tragedy have to do with consumerism?
Maybe if they had like 4 less kids they could afford electricity.
2006-09-08 07:10:15 · answer #2 · answered by Duque de Alba 3 · 3⤊ 1⤋
They did not burn because they were poor you idiot. They were careless, weathly people can be careless too. There power was out, so why didnt the mother pay the bill. Was she too busy buying crack with all the welfair money she got? With that many kids she was getting a good chunck of change. Dont tell me that they died because they were poor. That is a cop out. Go and hug a tree you lib.
2006-09-08 07:09:26 · answer #3 · answered by bildymooner 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I didn't vote for Bush, but apparently he convinced a lot of poor people to either stay home or vote for him. There are not enough rich people to elect him.
My hands are clean when it comes to this new class stratification.
In this case, there may also be the issue of personal responsibility. Many adults are bearing children when they are not economically able to care for them. Perhaps, in this case, having two children and electricity may have been a better choice.
2006-09-08 07:17:24 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Hey they should have bought more smoke detectors. Or they could have bought one of those emergency ladders that you hook to the window.
There are lots of fire prevention CD's you can buy and watch to better secure your home.
Go big Red Go
2006-09-08 08:02:20 · answer #5 · answered by 43 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
and the fire is the blame of the govt.? You msut own the place, and refuse to take the responibility of not keeping it up...so naturally you blame someone else....why don't you stop be a slum lord, and fix things up so your tenants won't die
2006-09-08 07:31:15 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Sounds like you cut-and-pasted from a Eurotrash editorial.
2006-09-08 07:06:43 · answer #7 · answered by rustyshackleford001 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are mistaken. They burned to death not because of poverty, but because of poor supervision and bad decisions by their guardians.
2006-09-08 07:25:18 · answer #8 · answered by desotobrave 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
That is sad, what is even sadder is that those parents would keep having kids knowing they could not provide for them.
2006-09-08 07:48:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋