 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Poverty in the USA
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 11 Sep 07 - 11:59 PM Listen up. Robert Reich and "Supercapitalism;"...or what Bobert's been sayin'. I also checked out the most recent entries on Reich's blog. Interesting political commentary. One last thing to highlight. In his interview with Terry Gross, he observes that when he went to Washington (sometime in the '70's) there were approximately 7000 registered lobbyists, compared to more than 40,000 today. Nearly all of those 40+thousand are corporate lobbyists. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 14 Jul 07 - 04:13 AM Oops, that was me, Joe. Please don't delete. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: GUEST,diana Date: 14 Jul 07 - 04:12 AM Lest you think all is rosy in Vancouver, B.C. "Two reports released this week show the Campbell government cares more about their political fortunes than they people they're supposed to serve, NDP Leader Carole James says. The B.C. Progress Board report, which came down Tuesday, showed British Columbia is falling behind the rest of Canada on issues like poverty, crime and other social conditions. This despite a public accounts report Wednesday that showed the province's budget surplus had ballooned to $4.1 billion. "We have a crisis in homelessness in this province, yet the Finance Minister thinks it's more important to have a big surplus than to actually use the resources to help people," said James. "More and more British Columbians are falling behind, but the Campbell government talks about budget surpluses as if the bottom line is the only thing that matters." "The surpluses are a result of high commodity prices and continuing low interest rates. Those conditions won't last forever. We should be doing more now to bridge the divide in our society, because when commodity prices drop again, the problem will get even worse." The Progress Board report showed that British Columbia ranks ninth among 10 Canadian provinces for social indicators. This province is second worst in the number of people living below the Low Income Cutoff. The B.C. Progress Report's 2007 Interim Report compares B.C.'s social condition to other provinces based on five categories: low-income cut off, personal property crime, income assistance levels, low birth weight, and long-term unemployment. B.C.'s overall ranking was ninth in Canada, with the second worst poverty and crime rate in the country. When questioned about the report Wednesday, Finance Minister Carole Taylor admitted she had not read it. "It's really shameful that the Campbell government has created the conditions in which our social condition is among the worst in Canada," James said. "What makes it worse is the Finance Minister refuses to read anything that contradicts her cheery rhetoric. This government created the problems and they continue to refuse to make any effort to help the people they've hurt." At least we have a polician in opposition that speaks the truth. Thats more than I can say about our Finance minister who cares more about her shoes than the people of B.C. When questioned about the report Wednesday, Finance Minister Carole Taylor admitted she had not read it. "I really believe in infrastructure spending... I amortize my shoes over 20 years." - Canada's BC Provincial Finance Minister Carole Taylor explaining why she wore $600 new Gucci shoes when presenting the annual budget. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 14 Jul 07 - 01:59 AM I'm not sure if this fits into this thread and you have probably read it before but I thought it was worth posting. (oops, I guess you can't post a slide). There is other interesting information on this site. http://www.bemidjistate.edu/dsiems/powerpoint/freire/sld002.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Kipp Date: 06 Jul 07 - 12:17 PM Dianava Kipp - Sorry if I misunderstood when you said, "There may be other that think it wrong but we do not live in an oligargy." I don't believe in usury but I probly would not lend any money to just anyone either I would think that I would get paid back, That is unless it was a gift. I think a good place to start is that I would expect from other's what they should expect from me. Kipp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Dickey Date: 05 Jul 07 - 10:50 PM The poor have been 100% disenfranchised but you won't hear a lot of stats outta me cause I don't need um. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 05 Jul 07 - 10:32 PM Barry, Bravo!! Art (When I said usury, I referred to the obscene excesses -- in money lending and in profit taking that is today's reality. There is no way to condone practices of that kind.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Barry Finn Date: 05 Jul 07 - 05:17 PM 'usury'! I grew up in a slum neighborhood, there were many folks who supported their families through criminal activities. My step father was a bookmaker ("bookie"), his best friend & banker was a loanshark, neither were violent & neither used violence as a means in their business, & neither were nearly as deadly as the industry is today, legally, actually both were very hornorable men & reguarded as good men in their community. Ya, you'd have to be there to believe it, I know. The government put both, along with many others out of business by legalizing gambling & the growth of the legal loan industry. The credit & loan industry now charges far more in interest than what was charged back when loaning cash was illegal which I believe over 20% made it usury & illegal. Anyway, back to poverty. Yes, companies do need to make profits to continue to stay competive but they don't need to steal from their employees, as in pension funds, by not paying overtime by classifiying many of their workers as management when they're not, by flooding their payrolls with parttime employees so they can skate free without giving benifits. They also don't need to flood the market with cheap products & crush their competition & manufactures by running what tends to be a monoply that kills both the competition & their employees. The government has corpporations the right to run ramshod over their workers by killing unions, passing laws that advocate watering down workers rights & a host of other agreements that stirp what little the nations employees had fought for since the days of the "Robber Barons", those days are here again! There was a time when the "American Deam" included a retirement with health benifits & a liveable pension when those loyal to the concept gave 30 yrs of their working lives to help make a company strong. They looked forward to spending the rest of their lives relaxing. The combo of big business & goverment has destroyed this dream, this promise, this trust agreement in favor of profits. There used to be insentives (both their own & goverment) in investing in their own research & development just as there were incentives for individules & companies to invest in solor power, but here it is 40 yrs later & all is that is missing & we're only not coming back to that. There was a time when companies sold themselves for the benifit of themselves & their workers instead of using bankrupticies & buy outs to strip off the valuables & leave the skeleton & crumbs for the vultures to pick from. The working class as well as the poor have been systematicly stripped of their resources & advantages that were once theirs to use in order to get ahead, that's all gone now. And one wonders why the gap & the trust grows between the rich & poor. Just look for a minute at our present economy. Where's the money going, follow it, it's not going to health, education, social services, housing, food production, enviorment, clean, safe or renewable enegry. It follows the path of least resistence, intro the pockets of big business & it's political machine. The housing market, sorry I don't have time for that one right now!! Maybe it'll take a revolution to wake up the sleeping giant. Cause from where I stand not enough people realize that we are their "beasts of burden", their cattle that they feed off of, we are their "bread & butter". Gotta go Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 05 Jul 07 - 05:00 PM Yes, it is spelled 'usury'. Kipp - Sorry if I misunderstood when you said, "There may be other that think it wrong but we do not live in an oligargy." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 05 Jul 07 - 04:57 PM Well, Kipp, I'm hearing a lot of floks saying these days that things are "complex" as if to say that us common folks just shouldn't worry our purdy heads over stuff that we don't know nuthin' about... And, no, this isn't meant to be critical of what you have said but more a general defense of current policies that claerly aren't working.. Poverty is not all that complex... It's causes are not all that complex... And the solutions are not all that complex... What is complex is how we get folks to understand just how badly they have been brainwashed into thinking relatively simple things are over our heads... I am being perfectly serious here... This is about collective values and in these days and times most people don't have the slighest clue why they believe what they believe because they are working way too hard and living way too fast and they don't have time to deleve into issues so they just hitch their beliefs to bumper sticker length opinions that really aren't based in reality but based on what ad-men and political spinsters want to instill... This really isn't a value sytem but more rote memory coupled with the emotions of partisanship... But when we strip it all away, what we find are some very ugly motives of greed, money and power by those who hire the ad-men and own the radio talk shows... No, nuthin' too complex about any of this... Ross Perot ran a very sucessfull 3rd party campaign in '92 and the crux of what he had to say was simple, "We have all the plans, we just need the will..." Well, we have the plans now... We know, for instance, that if a woman can't afford to pay for child care with what she makes that one of two things will happen: either she'll have to quit working or someone is going to have to pitch in to help with the child care... This is just one example of just how simple things are... Any component of the war on poverty can be looked at simply... There is no complexity... Just a matter of will... And a matter of putting ad-men tapes out of our heads and allow very simple common logic take over where the ad-men have cluttered our collective thinking... This ain't rocket surgery... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Ebbie Date: 05 Jul 07 - 02:30 PM Hey, if one is going to correct someone else's spelling, one should get it right oneself. The word is 'usury'. :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Kipp Date: 05 Jul 07 - 10:31 AM Dianavan I would like to know from where in my post that you could say that I am for or against usery any not all of the Bible forbids it Jeseus in his parable of the talents tell thell man that buried his money he would have been better if he invested it in an bank of some sort. I am not missing the point it is not only rich grssdy person that is preventing the por from geeting help it is greed in genral it matters not whom is greedy it is the state of the ccountry. Poverty is a much more complex problem than the rich vs. poor argument And the greed that some have does not matter because of class and it does matter because of class The old argument don't work any more thaey really have never worked the more you give the more there are to take that is the real point weather they are poor or not. The real poor are hiden away and most are too proud to admit they are poor. Kipp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 04 Jul 07 - 01:30 PM Kipp, you miss the point. It is not that rich people are bad and poor people are good. A powerful greedy person can get and keep all the marbles much more effectively than can a weak greedy person. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Kipp Date: 04 Jul 07 - 12:01 PM The rich are not the only people that are greedy class and the amount of wealth you have have nothing to do with greed. The same goes for the amount of comsumerism if the people did not buy from Walmart then Walmart would not exist. Most of the trouble that I had when wworking in the corport world was from those directly over me. The corporationdid not ask them to do what they did. They really just did the thing they did to others was what they thought they were doing to protect their jobs. A lot of middle management is incompitamt(sp) anyway. Kipp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 03 Jul 07 - 04:42 PM It really isn't about making a profit or not... And i's not whether or not rich people care if there are poor people... These are red herrings... It's about a corrupt system that allows for the playing field to be tilted distictly toward the rich and the corporations... That is precisely what we ahve in this country... It's a immoral and corrupt imbalance and the governemnt is no long "for the people" but for the rich and for the corporations... Money buys power and power tilts the playing field that benefits the money... The poor have been 100% disenfranchised... They are powerless... Stuck in a game in which rich people decide what crumbs will be doiled out to the poor... But the rich have gone even further in tilting the playing field toward their porfits and away from the middle class... The puchasing power of the middle class has been in a steady declince since the 80's... Oh sure, the middle class has kept its collective head above water but only by borrowing from the rich... The savings ratio by the midlle class is the lowest since the last 20's... This is what has gotten "Boss Hog" in trouble... Because of his greed and desire to control as much as he can he has not put into place a system that is bleeding the heck out of the middle class and this is where the seeds of "revolution" are germinating... Hey, I live right in the middle of veryu conswervative Bush/repub country and people around, as uneducated as many are, are very angry with what is going down... They are feeling it in the pocket book and starting to see things thru a different lense... These are died-in-the-wool Repubs who are very p.o.'d... I've spoken many times about the revolution and I firmly believe that its is in the embryonic stage now and I don't think that there is anyone in either the Republican Party of the Republican Party can do to stop it... Is it going to be violent??? I don't know... But it is going to be ugly... But one of the byproducts of the coming revolution is that there is going to be a major paradyme (values) shift and this will get the war on poverty back on track... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: GUEST,dianavan Date: 03 Jul 07 - 01:03 PM Its actually called 'usary'. The Koran and the Bible both forbid it. That being said, Kipp, it sounds like you think its O.K. to profit from the misery of others. Seems to me that 'right livelihood' should be a goal for all of us who want a better world. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Kipp Date: 03 Jul 07 - 12:48 PM Folks, It's called USERY---a term that was abolished officially a while ago by one administration or another. USERY was illegal to practice in the USA. Usery is the charging of interest on a loan It was considered a sin to charge interest on a loan The Roman Catholic Church still considers it a sin Part of the Jewish religion the orthodox Jews consider it so when loaning to each other but not to the gentiles. There may be other that think it wrong but we do not live in an oligargy SP Kipp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 03 Jul 07 - 10:41 AM Folks, It's called USERY---a term that was abolished officially a while ago by one administration or another. USERY was illegal to practice in the USA. It meant "making an excessive profit!" That's hard to believe for some here, but for most of my lifetime, it was actually illegal to make an excessive profit!!!!!! (And it should still be illegal!) POWER is a whole other thing. The way I see it and define it, power, without the codified reality of USERY, under capitalism is, more often than not, the extent to which you can inconvenience others--economically and otherwise! Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Peace Date: 03 Jul 07 - 02:04 AM Hispanics 21.8% 9.4 million African Americans 24.9% 9.2 million Whites (non-Hispanic) 8.3% 16.2 million Asian Americans 11.1% 1.4 million |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 03 Jul 07 - 01:12 AM Making a profit is not a crime. But making a profit no matter the social cost is. It doesn't matter whether rich people want poor people to be poor. What matters is, as a minority class that wields most of the direct power to influence public policies, the rich repeatedly influence public policies in the direction of increasing their own wealth and influence at the expense of the common good, and especially at the expense of the underclass. The rich person who fails to understand that a portion of his wealth depends on the existence of a substantial class of poor people is practicing elective ignorance. There is a wealth of knowledge and sound social research to bear this out. People, including rich people, are responsbile for their choices. They are responsible for understanding the effects of their choices. Like it or not, as members of a society who reap the benefits of living in a society, they are responsible for the effects of their choices on society. Wealth = power and the ready ability to influence public policies and socioeconomic conditions. Knowledge = power, and the wealthy tend to be well educated and well informed. In addition, there is considerable more cohesiveness among the much smaller class of those with wealth. People with wealth are much more similar to one another than are the individuals who comprise the much, much larger underclass. The upper class is much more able to wield power consciously and cohesively, than any other socioeconomic class. The conventioanl wisdom is that everyone who works for a corporation benefits when a corporation thrives. Time and again, however, this has proven not to be true. Corporations making good profits will repeatedly make choices to increase profits even more, and enrich themselves in the process, at the expense of the livelihood of the workers who were essential to the creation of the wealth to begin with. Enron is a prime example. A hand full of upperclass, corporate executives made decisions that cost thousands of workers their current livelihood and their future financial stability in retirement. There is also power inherent in the sheer numbers of people included in the lower, working and moderate socioeconomic classes. But that power is like lightning. It is wild and chaotic, unorganized unless or until a Union or a Martin Luther King Jr. comes along. At the individual level, much of the power that would otherwise be available for class action is redirected to getting through the day-to-day. As a class, the underclass does not generally have the capacity to operate cohesively, and the individuals of the underclass are less likely to recognize or understand that they are part of a social class. Being thoughtless, especially when one has power, is no excuse. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Peace Date: 02 Jul 07 - 11:12 PM "But I think in the end rich people want to be rich but they don't want poor people to be poor." That is well said, Dickey. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Dickey Date: 02 Jul 07 - 11:09 PM Peace: That has a certain amount of truth to it because poor people can't afford to donate to political campaigns. They can vote though and that leads the Pols to declare they are going to help them to gain votes. But I think in the end rich people want to be rich but they don't want poor people to be poor. Maybe some prey on poor people like credit card companies. They charge them more interest and they like to trap people into carrying a balance that they can't pay off. Bank America made a far bigger margin of profit than Exxon but the Boberts of the world and the media (despite the fact that the media is supposed to be under the control of corporations) blame the poor people's plight on Exxon. Is Being Profitable a Crime? Reporters commonly failed to put oil profits in a larger business context. When they cited Exxon Mobil Corp.’s $9.9 billion third-quarter profit, they focused on the raw numbers rather than explaining to viewers that Exxon doesn’t make as much relative to its product as many other industries do. A comparison of profit margins â€" dividing net profits by the amount of revenue the company took in â€" shows that other companies enjoy much higher returns. For example, Exxon’s profit margin for its high-earnings quarter (dividing $9.9 billion by revenue of $100 billion) was almost 10 percent. But a look at Fortune’s Global 500 list from July 2005 shows that is not unusual â€" and some companies surpassed that in earlier quarters. Johnson and Johnson showed profits of almost 18 percent in the July report, while Bank of America enjoyed more than 22 percent. The media also ignored the largest beneficiary of the oil “windfallâ€쳌: the government. The Tax Foundation’s Scott Hodge and Jonathan Williams noted in an October 26 report that “in recent decades governments have collected far more revenue from gasoline taxes than the largest U.S. oil companies have collectively earned in domestic profits.â€쳌 In fact, “since 1977, there have been only three years (1980, 1981, and 1982) in which domestic oil industry profits exceeded government gas tax collections.â€쳌 http://www.businessandmedia.org/news/2005/news20051102.asp Keep in mind that Bank America does not produce a material product but a service. As soon as people declare bankruptcy to relieve themselves from debt, they get offers from credit card companies because they cannot declare bankruptcy again. I consider them leaches. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Peace Date: 02 Jul 07 - 10:38 PM Sorry, Dickey. I truly think and archaic political system has allowed the poor to become persona non grata. Them what's got has got. Them what don't--tough. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Dickey Date: 02 Jul 07 - 10:30 PM Peace: Do you want to go over all that here on the poverty thread? I think we would better spend the time identifying the real causes of poverty and those that prey on poor people such as unscrupulous (crooked)car dealers. Bobert: You said you ain't going to hear a bunch of stats out of me cause I don't need um. Then you throw out a stat that is totally wrong and refuse ot support it ir fess up that it was wrong. A bunker mentality like you accuse Bush of having. I am not 100% against national health insurance as long as there is private insurance available. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: GUEST Date: 02 Jul 07 - 06:51 PM JANIE, I'm the guest above. You have hit the nail on the head so many times in this discourse, that, if I was the nail, I'd be all bent out o' shape like some here that cannot hear all the absolute truths you've posted. Two words I want/need to toss out are Spend down. With both of our MANY pre-existing med realities, with my sig other not having had enough "quarters in" to be considered for SSDI even though she is thoroughly disabled, even though I COULD earn if I put my mind to it, I cannot earn because it would be added to our already huge "spend down". All that JUST so I can get regular ECTs for her through Medicaid. And the state we are in is the new Mississippi of the north!!!!! No budget agreed on. Month to month emergency spending bills. Gridlock by politicians. No funding for mental health and everything else cut WAY back!---------- And why? Because of this absolutely insane war sucking thousands of billions of dollars away from all that made life in America worthwhile.---Check out Ian Robb's song "They're Takin' It Away"---a real stunner. Not to mention the obscene systematic dismantling of the nations values and rights. I used to send cash to ACLU & Amnesty Int. regularly. I can't keep doing that now, and I have come to resent the calls and the mailings I get all the damn time. Yes, mam, I know from where you come. And it's appreciated. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 02 Jul 07 - 05:30 PM Whereas Dickey would love nuthin' more than to try yet again to make this thtread about anything but poverty it is a thread about poverty... Not voting machines... Not Democrats... And certainly not about his silly juvinilistic yes/no games... BTW, I belive I was the first here in Mudville to use the yes/no thing but I don't live in yes/no-burg as if it's the only game in town... Right now it has turned Dickey into a one-trick-pony... BTW, Dickey... When did I, as you state in your above post, ever say I never or don't use stats??? You won't find that in my over 5 ot 6 years here... I have said alot of things about stats but never that I never use them... Some stats are purdy straight forward and hard to manipulate... Those are the ones that I am more pat to use ratehr than the ones that my college stats professor used to throw out as examples of how one goes about proving that 1 is equal to 2... Now as for Democrats... A part of jump starting the war on poverty is assuming that the Democrats get their funding from similar sources as the Republicans: corporations... This does not bode well for and jump startin' seein' as a resumjed war on poverty is going to involve wrestling resources away from the corporate fat cats... No, this is most likely going to involve a 3rd party and the time has never been better... Voters voted for Dems in the "06 election less because they had ***confidence*** the Dems would do a better job but more because they had lost ***confidence*** in the Republicans... So for anyone to think that a sweep by the Dems in '08 to a point where the Senate has the votes to shut own a fillibuster will signal a jum,p start on the war on poverty, think again... Yeah, okay, national "single payer" health insurance will make it's way into serious discussion and that's all well and good but a serious discussion about poverty and inequity ain't gonna happen... My Senator, Jim Webb, has been trying to get folks to listen to him about this issue but they are ignoring him as if he were talking to them from a radiation pit... Well, got band rehersal so gotta go... Opening for the Nighthawks this Friday night and gotta tighten up the sound a little... Later... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Peace Date: 02 Jul 07 - 04:45 PM My apologies. I didn't answer your question. What are the Dems doing about it? If they have the sense that God gave a turnip, they are slipping Diebold lotsa cash. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Peace Date: 02 Jul 07 - 04:38 PM OK. You got me on the voting machines. How about the rest? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Dickey Date: 02 Jul 07 - 04:37 PM Peace: I could argue every point that you made was biased such as the Republican voting machines. "Voting machines provided by allies of the Republican Party, that count our votes using secret software and produce results that cannot be verified." A. How did Democrats gain a majority if Republican voting machines were in use? B. Are there any voting machine companies who are not allies of the Republicans? C. Who demanded the voting machines to begin with? D. Who specified the software? E. If there is a problem, why not fix it unless you need something to use to dispute the outcome of an election? Same thing with the electoral college. What are Democrats doing to fix that? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Peace Date: 02 Jul 07 - 04:21 PM "To cast a blanket condemation on an entire class of people or capitalisim is wrong and will not produce any results." Then I have just one question left. Why doesn't the USA have a National Health Care Program? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Dickey Date: 02 Jul 07 - 04:18 PM I agree with Kipp. Just supporting poor people will not eliminate poverty. It promotes poverty. Blame it on the rich class. If the rich don't like poor people, why would they want more of them? Blame it on Corporations. What can a corporation sell to a poor person? Blame it on the government. The politicians consider helping the poor a vote getter. Identify the people and corporations that actualy feed on the poor and do something to stop them or educate the people so they can make the right decisions. To cast a blanket condemation on an entire class of people or capitalisim is wrong and will not produce any results. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Kipp Date: 02 Jul 07 - 02:08 PM AWG, I agree that hunger is the biggest problem and it is a true indication of poverty. But there is a problem with most of the programs tat are addressior think they are addressing the hunger problem. And that is because they are not realy doing there research into the problem and just giving out food and not getting their hands dirty thinking they have done a good deed, they have and yet they have nit, Most of the people tht end up getting the food are not the hungry they are just the most agresive selfish of of people and these people seem ro show up when ever something is given away for free this is a reality that has tobe addressed. A good portion of thewe very folks are in fact the criminal class that delight in beating the system. I am not against helping the poor provided it is the poor that are being helped. So you see the poor do become victums of a sort kind of by the very people tyhat think they are offering help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Peace Date: 02 Jul 07 - 12:14 AM Dickey, I have mostly found you to be reasonable (when I try to see things from your point of view. Please undrestand that I find Bobert to be reasonable even when I don't try to see things from his point of view. You two guys gotta find even a small piece of common ground to stand on and talk. "Relevance to the present day situation Republicans cry ¡§class warfare¡¨ whenever Democrats suggest measures that are meant to improve the lives of American citizens in general, but which may cut into the profits of the wealthy and powerful benefactors of the Republican Party. They like to pretend that they represent the forces of law and order, and that they will protect us against those of us who wish to institute ¡§class warfare¡¨ and plunge our country into anarchy and terrorism. But in reality they are similar in many ways to the brigands of 14th century France or the Robber Barons of the Gilded Age." That little snippet is from a Democrat site. So, it is likely biased. But the following statements (observations) from the same site are good observations regardless of whose site they are from: ƒÞ Passing of a Medicare bill that prohibits government negotiation of prices with the drug companies, thus enriching drug companies at the expense of our senior citizens ƒÞ Massive tax cuts for the rich ƒÞ Nominating a Secretary of Labor who is rabidly anti-union ƒÞ Nominating a Secretary of the Interior who is rabidly anti-environment ƒÞ No bid contracts for reconstruction in Iraq, and then failure to follow up on gross violations of those contracts ƒÞ Failure to raise the minimum wage for almost 10 years ƒÞ Passage of a bankruptcy bill that encourages predatory lending practices ƒÞ Passage of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which allowed the consolidation and monopolization of the news media ƒÞ Failure to take seriously or respond to the worst hurricane to hit our country in several years or decades ƒÞ Deregulation of the energy industry, which allowed Enron to create an artificial power crises in order to raise energy prices ƒÞ Voting machines provided by allies of the Republican Party, that count our votes using secret software and produce results that cannot be verified They are not just good observations (IMO), but they certainly pose some serious questions about Republicans and the Neocon agenda. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Dickey Date: 01 Jul 07 - 11:56 PM Peace: It seems to me Bobert is trying to say "class warfare" is a new thing being used by "corportist/industrialists" against progressives. The term originates with Marxists which is the exact opposite of "corportist/industrialists" Boberts favorite game is blaiming things on a class of people. Suppose I said a guitar picker murdered someone so they are responsible for murders? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Dickey Date: 01 Jul 07 - 11:30 PM Janie: I asked Bobert a simple yes or no question. You did not and you claim there is no fix but demand that I produce one. I don't feel hoisted at all. A petard is a bomb like Bobert admittedly likes to light up and throw and you gullible folks get suckered in to believing his left wing fairy tales. 1. of little or no importance or consequence: petty grievances. 2. of lesser or secondary importance, merit, etc.; minor: petty considerations. 3. having or showing narrow ideas, interests, etc.: petty minds. 4. mean or ungenerous in small or trifling things: a petty person. 5. showing or caused by meanness of spirit: a petty revenge. 6. of secondary rank, esp. in relation to others of the same class or kind: petty states; a petty tyrant. I think it is important when someone who claims that they won't use statistice because they don't need 'em, quotes a statistic that is at least 100% off and refuses to admit it is wrong or support what they said. It is time for Bobert to act sincere insteal of churlish. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Peace Date: 01 Jul 07 - 10:52 PM The term "Class Warfare" has been used by Democrats and Republicans alike. Each wants to co-opt the term. Doesn't matter who used it first (unless etymology is yer bag). Matters who's using it now. And why. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Dickey Date: 01 Jul 07 - 10:44 PM Bobert rides again: Class warfare In its original meaning, class warfare is a Marxist term referring to the sometimes violent struggle between the ruling class (bourgeoisie) and the working class (proletariat). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 01 Jul 07 - 09:14 PM Good point, Janie... There are millions of households that are just a pay check away from poverty... I know... I have three employees that I pay well and as much as can for this area which is in the $10.00 to $11.00 range... Techincally, this amount puts them over the poverty line but I know that if they lost a weekas worth of pay they would be up the creek... There are millions of folks living on margins of poverty... This is the story that the politicans don't want out but it's true... Yeah, the politicans don't keep stats on these folks but if they did when added to the official poverty rates I think even the "Boss Hog" apologists here would be astonished at just how many folks that are really struggling... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 01 Jul 07 - 06:50 PM 31% of our population have income that is less than 200% of the poverty level, not because our 'poverty' programs are inadequate, (even though they are inadequate, but because of broad socioeconomic conditions. Policies and programs that are targeted directly at reducing poverty, in and of themselves, are necessary but insufficent to substantially reduce poverty. They must be one piece of broader policies and programs that address the social welfare of the population as a whole. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 01 Jul 07 - 01:26 PM No matter, AWG... You seem to have either misquoted and/or misunderstood what I said about the upper 5%... What I siad is thast the planet cannot sustain the consumption levels of the upper 5%... When I grew up in Norhtern Virgina just about everyone lived in a moderate house... Senators, Congressmen, Generals, Admirals, diplomats, etc... No one *need*ed (or thought they *need*ed...) a 7000 sq. ft. house... Now you'd be hard pressed to find a majoe city in the US that doesn't have at least one McMansion ghetto with 7000 sq, ft. houses everywhere... This is not only an obsene display of wealth but it is also wastefull of "resources"... Ending poverty shouldn't be just about redistristribution of reources a discussion about conservation and sharing of what the planet has to offer us collectively... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: AWG Date: 01 Jul 07 - 10:36 AM Correction, Bobert. To quote myself from the last post..." Oh, and Bobert, you make some pretty big assumptions when you say 5% of taxes go to the rich. How do you know this ?..." I meant that taxes go to the upper 5%, not that 5% of taxes go to the rich. Don't want to mis-quote you, my apologies. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: AWG Date: 01 Jul 07 - 10:31 AM No wonder this thread has so many posts, 99% of them are Janie babbling on with pages upon pages of stats, etc that nobody cares about (sorry to burst your bubble, Janie). And Dianavan poking her nose in everyonce in awhile to make some bullshit comment.."...The best indicator of poverty is hunger. The most startling fact is the number of children in the U.S. who are hungry. I'd like to know how AWG, kipp, or Dickie would go about solving this problem. My guess is that they don't give a damn..." Good one Dianavan, how do you know the number of children in the US who are hungry ?? I bet you don't have a clue. And how do you know how Dickie, Kipp or myself feel about hunger amongst children. Dianavan, you are an idiot, plain and simple. I said I wouldn't resort to the name calling, etc that others here are so fond of, but there's no way Im letting this one go. Oh, and Bobert, you make some pretty big assumptions when you say 5% of taxes go to the rich. How do you know this ? Is this your answer as to why the USA is running such a high deficit ? Have you ever seen a federal budget, or any government budget for that matter ?? Check one out sometime. Have a great day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Bobert Date: 01 Jul 07 - 08:49 AM My own thoughts, Janie, is that this medium, the internet, is our microphone... It is the only medium/media that the corportaist/industrialists haven't figured out how to silence... They own and control the public airwaves... They own the newspapers, the magazines... This is how they have brainwashed so many people into thinking that poor people are lazy, cheaters and not of worth... These are "values" that have carefully and skuillfully been **instilled** into the masses thru bombardments of misinformation... They play on people's fears and turn those fears around into mistrust and hatred... This is what the corportae media has done and it has done it well... But... ... thru the internet the misinformation campaign that "Boss Hog" has unleashed on our population over the last 30 years is slowly loosing it's staying power as more and more people are understanding both our broken economy as well as our broken system of governing... This is where I find hope... I also find hope in the 20 somethings that I've met at anti-war rallies... There is a large number of kids who have escaped the mindlessness of "No Child Left Behind" or were just ahead of it's terrible consequences on dumbing down our children's critical thinking and cretive skills... Yeah, these kids understand... They have seen thru "Boss Hog's" PR campaign and his lies... So, yeah, I feel change in the air... And I am hopefull... And lastly, yes, it can't be said enough that this is all about our collective values and how we collectively share with one another... Reources are ***not*** unlimited and with that fact firmly in focus, a family of four does not need a 10 bedroom house... This is wastefull... The planet cannot sustain this level of obscene consumption even if it is done ny only the upper 5%... There are rich people in certain areas of the country where water is scarce who consume over a million gallons of water a year keeping their landscaping watered just becuase they have the money to do so... That's what I mean about "values"... They shouldn't be able to do that just becasue they can afford to do so... ...and after the coming revolution people won't have a midset that they have a right to consume as much as they ***want***... The entire ide of ***want*** will have a new definition... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 01 Jul 07 - 12:28 AM The strong element of social conservatism that continues to exist in our citizenry resists public policies and programs that adequately fund daycare in support of working mothers in general, and single working mothers in particular. Social conservatives view such programs as promoting women in the work force as opposed to women staying home to raise children. Social conservatism does not have the means in which to acknowledge or accept the reality of the past 20+ years that most mothers, single or not, have to work outside of the home because economic conditions require it. (Social conservatives have never acknowledged the economic realities of minority families, where the vast majority of mothers have always had to work outside the home in order for the family to make ends meet.) Earlier today, when I was looking for census data on poverty, I stumbled across a figure that surprised me. In 1959, the poverty rate was a whopping 22%. My first reaction was that the poverty programs of the 60's and 70's were really more effective than I thought. Perhaps they were. But now it occurs to me to wonder what was the effect on poverty rates of large numbers of women entering the work force. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 30 Jun 07 - 11:46 PM Social liberalism does not hold all the answers either, but for the short term, offers greater possibilities and has some ability to restrain the excesses of capitalism. Bobert, I agree that as a society, actually, as a world population, we are poised on the cusp of something. What that something is, I do not know. I do not think it has yet been determined. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 30 Jun 07 - 11:27 PM Social conservatisim is (mostly) no longer a viable position in terms of addressing the major social issues in our very large and very diverse society. Why? because there is no turning back the clock. There is no way to put the genie back into the bottle. Social conservatism works for smaller, relatively homogenous, and cohesive communities and societies in which there does not occur a lot of geographic mobility, adult children live in close proximity to elderly parents, neighbors live in long association with one another and therefore have a sense of connection and community responsibility for one another, a sufficient number of employers have a stake in the well-being of the community as being in their best business interests, etc. That ain't the reality of the USA today, and it ain't the direction we are headed in, largely as a result of capitalism run riot. As an aside, I am not opposed to capitalism. I am opposed to capitalism unrestrained by any other values. Capitalism per se is not immoral. It is, however, amoral. When capitalism has ultimate primacy in the philosophy, choices and actions of an individual, corporation or government, many of those decisions and actions will be immoral. Social conservatism in the USA today looks backwards to conventions, traditions, and social conditions that no longer exist in our society for the most part. Social conservatism is not capable of restraining unbridled capitalism in the current age. In fact, it has been co-opted. Janie |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Peace Date: 30 Jun 07 - 11:02 PM I am so proud of myself for not saying a word. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Ebbie Date: 30 Jun 07 - 10:29 PM Thanks for the giggle, Janie. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 30 Jun 07 - 10:05 PM **giggle** is bush a freudian slip or not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA From: Janie Date: 30 Jun 07 - 10:02 PM hmmm....*bush*....well then, 1200. simple pleasures for simple folks. You are right Bobert. Once in a very, very great while, an article will hit the news that some person majorly scammed the system and made some good money from welfare programs. That occurence is so exceptional as to be not worth considering when policies and programs are developed. Are there some people who work the system? Yes. Are they still poor? Yes. Are there many, many people who do not report under-the-table earnings from babysitting, cutting grass, or do not report contributions from family to help buy food, make up a rent payment, pay a water bill, pay the Medicaid co-pays for doctor visits or prescription drugs? Yes. And they had better not report it. If they do, their skinny food stamp, SSI, or TANF benefits will be cut dollar for dollar, and then the electric bill or the next month's rent will not be paid, or the kids will be eating nothing but pancakes made from flour and water and fried in lard for another week, or they will go another two weeks without the medicine for hypertension, or will forego the doctor visit when they get bronchitis only to end up in the hospital with pneumonia a week later. "Ye who have ears to hear, listen." The socioeconomic policies of this country over the past 25 years have led to an excessive concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. This concentration of wealth not only effects rates and conditions of poverty. The policies that have allowed this concentration of wealth are a significant reason why many moderate income households find they are using credit cards at the grocery store and doctor's office. It is a significant reason why many moderate income households forego family coverage for medical insurance when they work for small to moderately sized companies that offer insurance. It is the reason small businesses and self-employed people can not afford medical insurance or good preventive health care. It is a significant reason why workers are not able to dedicate a sufficient portion of their earnings to the company 401K plan. Think big. Think societal. LOOK AT THE BIG PICTURE! And then study some US history and remember the robber barons. Janie |
