BS: Poverty in the USA

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 11:32 AM

More Dickey "tokenism"... Get real...

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 01:30 AM

Don't look now Bobert but:

A Woman and Her Community Media Advisory

Who:    Jennifer Thompson
What:    Welfare-to-Work, Individual Development Account, First-time Home Buyer
When:   Closing Date for Purchase of Home - July 18, 2001
            Ms. Thompson Available for Interview - July 19, 2001
Where: City of Northwoods, Missouri - North St. Louis County
Why:    Good news from a Welfare-to-Work program!

Hard Work Pays Off - Nearly three years ago, Jennifer Thompson, 29, a single mother of four children, subsisted on welfare assistance. With the American dream seemingly beyond her reach and a cycle of poverty looming large, Thompson's future looked bleak. Against all odds, Thompson lit a candle rather than curse the darkness, and then burned the candle at both ends.

Ms. Jennifer Thompson with the Annie E. Casey Foundation film crew during recent filming of a welfare-to-work documentary. The Annie E. Casey Foundation funds East-West Gateway's St. Louis Regional Jobs Initiative. In June 1998, Thompson enrolled in classes at the Clayton Business School sponsored by the St. Louis Regional Jobs Initiative-a program of the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council and funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Missouri Department of Social Services.

After six months cracking the books, she received well-deserved certification as a professional in the secretarial and word-processing field. She landed an entry-level job making $16,644 per year as a Claims Specialist with Seabury and Smith-a third party insurance company located in downtown St. Louis. Thompson put her nose to the grindstone and, within nine months, she had received a substantial increase in earnings.

A Penny Saved is a Penny Earned - Thompson successfully transitioned from welfare to work, but didn't rest on her laurels. She wanted more than check-to-check security, so she sacrificed short-term entertainment for long-term engagement. After paying bills and buying food to feed four children, Thompson socked whatever money remained into an Individual Development Account managed by Gena Gunn of the St. Louis Regional Jobs Initiative, a program of the East-West Gateway Coordinating Council.

An Individual Development Account is a unique savings plan for families with limited income designed to encourage asset building; it's the brainchild of Dr. Michael Sherraden of Washington University in St. Louis. The St. Louis Regional Jobs Initiative's IDA program provides a $2 match for every $1saved. Firstar Bank of St. Louis agreed to sponsor Thompson's IDA, while the United Way of Greater St. Louis administered federal funds earmarked for the program and the Missouri Department of Social Services handled the state funds.

With federal and state matches for every dollar deposited by Thompson, she noticed the meager sum in her IDA increasing rapidly. All the while, Gunn coordinated continuing education courses for Thompson, who enrolled in money management and economic literacy classes instructed by volunteers from the National Council of Jewish Women. Before long, Thompson's perspective shifted from subsistence to financial stability, and from financial stability to home ownership.

There's No Place Like Home - In just over two years, Jennifer Thompson blossomed from a single mother on welfare to a working mom with money in the bank. Thanks to the money management courses and the encouragement of her IDA program coordinator, Thompson realized the key to financial security is asset accumulation and home ownership.

Where There's a Will, There's a Way - Through a first-time home buyers program sponsored by Better Family Life - a local community development corporation - and debt counseling provided by Justine Peterson Housing and Reinvestment Corporation, home ownership became less and less a pipe-dream. The money in Thompson's IDA could be used as a down payment. Closing costs could be supplemented. And Thompson's education, steady job and participation in money management classes made her a likely candidate for loan approval.

On Wednesday, July 18, the American dream becomes a reality for Jennifer Thompson. Thanks to Gunn's constant coordination and encouragement and Thompson's dedication, Thompson's path from poverty to property owner ends at the front door of a three bedroom home on a tree-lined street in north St. Louis County.

http://gwbweb.wustl.edu/csd/asset/newsarticles/ewgateway.html

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 23 Jun 07 - 12:31 AM

Bobert sure has a way with those stats he claims he don't need.

From: Bobert
Date: 15 Jun 07 - 09:03 PM

"The US is getting more and more like Haiti with 1% holding all the wealth"

Meanwhile, Haiti's most serious underlying social problem, the huge wealth gap between the impoverished Creole-speaking black majority and the French-speaking minority, 1% of whom own nearly half the country's wealth, remains unaddressed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/1202772.stm

To Bobert, nearly half is all.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 11:47 PM

Laugh alone Bobert but can you please stop messin' with us jus' fir fun long enough to answer one easy question:

Is it or is it not possible for poor people to obtain home ownership?

___yes
___no

You claim you not need any stats but then you demand stats???????? Either you've had too many brownies or not enough.

From the Center for Social Development
George Warren Brown School of Social Work
Washington University of St Louis:

   * Over 500 IDA initiatives exist in communities across the country. Overall, at least 10,000 people are currently saving in IDAs.
    * 30 states included IDAs in their state Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) plans (as allowed by the 1996 welfare reform law), which excludes counting IDAs as assets for the purpose of qualifying for benefits.
    * 34 states, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico have passed some form of IDA legislation. Only six states have no known IDA activity.
    * Several national foundations have supported the American Dream Demonstration (ADD), a 4-year, 14-site IDA policy demonstration.
    * IDAs are expected to reach an additional 30,000 to 40,000 working-poor Americans by the year 2003 though the federal Assets for Independence Act of 1998 (AFIA).
    * The Savings for Workings Family Act of 2002 (SWFA), introduced in both the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, proposed billions in tax credits for financial institutions and private sector investors to match and support IDAs. Although SWFA did not pass in 2002, it may be reintroduced during the 2003 session.
    * The Office of Refugee Resettlement has also established an IDA program for organizations across the country assisting refugee populations.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 06:31 PM

What a joke... I called a friend of mine who is still a social worker dealing with poor afults and he has never heard of the programs that you have made reference to in the above post...

So here we go again with your ***tokenism***... Yeah, you find one person outta the millions of poor people in America who has actually bought a house and hold them up as if they represent ***all*** poor people...

Any Stats 201 professor would give you an "F" for that...

Then you bring up a few bogus associations that no one in the real world who deals with poor people has ever heard of and tout it as proof positive that "Boos Hog" is trying to level the playing field???

You have become, ahhhhh, a joke...

You do not apparently have any connection with the real world...

Is there a door on your house???

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 01:40 PM

Ever heard of IDAs Bobert? It is another way that your "Boss Hogg" rich people and corporations are trying to help poor people. Not by forking over the money you claim they steal from the poor but by teaching them how to be sucessfull. Quite a differenc from your class warfare techniques so obviously you will have to find fault somehow so wind up your stink bomb pitchin' arm, get your lighter lit and get ready for some real fun.

What are IDAs?

    Individual Development Accounts (IDAs) are emerging as one of the most promising tools that enable low-income and low-wealth American families to save, build assets, and enter the financial mainstream. Based on the idea that all Americans should have access, through the tax code or through direct expenditures, to the structures that subsidize homeownership and retirement savings of wealthier families, IDAs encourage savings efforts among the poor by offering them 1:1, 2:1, or more generous matches for their own deposits. IDAs reward the monthly savings of working-poor families who are trying to buy their first home, pay for post-secondary education, or start a small business. These matched savings accounts are similar to 401(k) plans and other matched savings accounts but can serve a broad range of purposes.
    IDA programs are implemented by community-based organizations in partnership with a financial institution that holds the deposits, and funded by public and private sources. Similar to 401(k)s, IDAs make it easier for low-income families to build the financial assets they need to achieve the American Dream. Populations that have benefited from participation in IDA programs include former welfare recipients, youth in disadvantaged urban and rural schools, recent refugees, and the working poor.
    Federal and state governments and/or private sector organizations and individuals can match deposits for low-income families. There is potential for creative program design and partnerships among the public, private, and nonprofit sectors, in cooperation with account holders themselves. The savings and financial literacy components of IDAs are attracting the financial community to be involved in IDA programs. Several financial institutions across the U.S., including community banks and credit unions, are currently running IDA programs, and many other financial institutions are funding IDA programs and holding accounts.
    * Low-income families can save
The American Dream Demonstration (ADD), a 14-site IDA program, has proven that low-income families, with proper incentives and support, can and do save for longer-term goals. In ADD, average monthly net deposits per participant were $19.07, with the average participant saving 50% of the monthly savings target and making deposits in 6 of 12 months. Participants accumulated an average of $700 per year including matches. Importantly, deposits increased as the monthly target increased, indicating that low-income families' saving behavior, like that of wealthier individuals, is influenced by the incentives they receive.
    * Financial literacy creates savers and savvy consumers
Key to the success of IDAs is the economic education that participants receive. Information about repairing credit, reducing expenditures, applying for the Earned Income Tax Credit, avoiding predatory lenders, and accessing financial services helps IDA participants to reach savings goals and to integrate themselves into the mainstream economic system. The encouragement and connection to supportive services keep early withdrawals to a minimum and overcome obstacles to saving Banks and credit unions benefit from these new customer relations, and states benefit from decreased presence of check-cashing, pawnshop, and other predatory outlets.
    * Assets change lives
   More than income enhancement, asset accumulation affects individuals' confidence about the future, willingness to defer gratification, avoidance of risky behavior, and investment in community. In families where assets are owned, children do better in school, voting participation increases, and family stability improves. Reliance on public assistance decreases as families use their assets to access higher education and better jobs, reduce their housing costs through ownership, and create their own job opportunities through entrepreneurship.
    * Communities benefit from homeownership, entrepreneurship, and educational attainment
Twenty-eight percent of ADD "graduates" bought a home, 23% started or expanded their own business, and 21 % pursued higher education. The rest used their savings for home repair, job training, or retirement. This represents a substantial investment in low-income communities and a significant stabilizing effect on the local economy. There is evidence from IDA initiatives that poor people, with proper incentives and supports, will save regularly and acquire productive assets. For example, 2,364 low-income families participating in ADD had accumulated $36,481,498 (including matching funds) as of December 2001. Monthly deposits typically ranged from $30-$75 per month. Also, research summarized by the Center for Social Development (CSD) demonstrates many beneficial aspects of assets..."

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 12:35 AM

Bobert: Pleae don't play intelligent.

What is your claim now? Is it or is it not possible for poor people to obtain home ownership?

___yes
___no

Every time I give you an example you say it is not enough. Now you say it is the lone exception. Lone means the only or the single one. If I find another will it be enough or will you say two don't mean anything? I have yet to hear you say anything that means anything.

You are AHHHH, playing games, throwing stink bombs again.

Bobert: "They get their noses up in the air 'bout folks funnin'. Yeah you want to talks about the origins os Scotish folk music fir hours upon end, then that's the joint fir ya. When I first started going over there I'd mess with em' and they'd get all upset and jump up an' down but these days they they ignore me like I'm Casper, 'er something. But I still drop by and mess with 'em jus' fir fun."

Enough, let me go on over there, light a stink bomb and skeee-adddle.


Having fun Bobert?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 06:39 PM

Ahhhhh, don't play stupid, Dickey...

You understand the argumenbt very well... Through out the South there are thousands of miles of back roads where some very poor, mostly black people live on pieces of farms that were given or purchased thru various tennant arrangements to these folks forbearers... I mean, I have spent a lot of time in Mississippi and there are countless thousands of people who fitr this criteria, especially in the Delta...

So for you to suggest, because of faulty stats, that home ownership is a presnt day option for poor people is not only short-sighted but, yeah, ludicris....

This is the stats game that you like to play when it fits your particular value system...

And finding the lone exceptions to the rule is not proof positive of you position either...

Bottom line, poor people can't cureently buy homes and it's been that way for a long. long time...

...but that keep a lot of slum lords fat and happy...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 01:18 PM

Union Officials Sought $275,000 from Worker Who Criticized Them

Union boss scorns: “we don’t like your kindâ€쳌

ORANGE COUNTY, CA â€" National Right to Work Foundation attorneys
helped end a three-year long ordeal that included union lies about the seizure of forced dues, an internal union kangaroo court, a California state libel lawsuit, and the threat of a quarter million dollar
retaliatory fine.
Ultimately, Southern California Edison (SCE) employee Randy Boettjer
(pronounced “Betcherâ€쳌) prevailed in his battle against bullying by International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 47 union officials. But it was no cakewalk...."

Automotive Union Brass Prosecuted for Bullying Nurses
Ohio nurses endure physical intimidation, surveillance, and stalking by union agents

TOLEDO, OH â€" The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has issued a
formal complaint and agreed to prosecute the United Auto Workers (UAW)
union for a campaign of harassment and intimidation aimed at nurses
seeking an election to vote the union out at St. Vincent Mercy Medical Center...."

http://righttowork.org/foundation-action/marapr07.pdf

When Voting Isn’t Private:
The Union Campaign Against Secret Ballot Elections

Facing declining membership, union officials have turned to a highly questionable practice of organizing new members through a process called “card check.â€쳌 With card checks, paid union organizers try to persuade workers to sign cards saying that they favor union representation. This persuasion is documented as frequently including deception, coercion, and harassing visits to workers’ homes...

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 21 Jun 07 - 12:52 PM

Bobert: "I think this a ludicris argument that cannot be backed up with real evidence"

What, in particular, is the argument? First you say the poor pepole cannot own homes and then you say lots of poor people own their own homes.

Is the argument that "Poor people can and do work their way up the ladder of life and get their own homes." Is untrue?

Are you saying that no poor people ever work their way out of poverty and buy a home?

I think that is a ludicrous argument that cannot be backed up by real evidence.


By Keyonna Summers
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
January 13, 2006

Thirty-three-year-old single mother Rose remembers the scratchy feel of a food stamp in her palm and the embarrassment she felt as she used it to purchase groceries so that her son wouldn't go hungry.
    The Olney resident said she slipped in and out of the welfare system for years as she struggled to scrape together funds for her college classes and the electricity bills for her two-bedroom Silver Spring apartment on a yearly $9,000 salary.
    "I had a dead-end job, not making enough money for the cost of living, to support myself and my son," said Rose, who asked that her last name not be used. "It was just poverty from check to check."
    But thanks to the Family Self-Sufficiency (FSS) program, a federal welfare-to-housing program offered through the Montgomery County Housing Opportunities Commission, Rose -- like hundreds of other Montgomery County residents -- has within the past year forged a remarkable turnaround.
    She now has a good-paying job as an administrative assistant for an accounting firm, the keys to a three-bedroom town house and a new lease on life...."

http://www.hocmc.org/News/Climbing%20a%20lifeline%20out%20of%20poverty.htm

Now move on to your next "fact" Bobert.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 10:24 AM

Peace, that would be, in theory, a great idea. Probably never convince the government to go along, they would rather collect than give. As far as the point about disposable income, agreed, I was only referring to those poor who were in the position to buy their own home or who already own their own home. Bobert was stating that there are in fact those poor who are in this position. I personally would think it would be virtually impossible for anyone making less than $18,000 to afford to own or hang onto (for those who inherit) a home. It just costs too much per month, heck, property taxes alone can cost a minimum of $250/mth here, let alone some of the larger cities. Plus they could never come up with the down payment without robbing a bank or hitting up a hell of a lot of tourists for loose change.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 10:07 AM

AWG: That is good thinking, but it presupposes disposable income. Many people HAVE no disposable income.

We got it all wrong. If people were gonna make sense, every child born would inherit, at birth, $100,000 from government general revenues. A social insurance paid forward. After that, no employment insurance premiums, no social insurance premiums. The child would be allowed to keep the money in secured accounts until the age of 18 (to pick an age). By that time the money would likely have doubled. University or other post-secondary would be ensured. Two generations and Canada would have THE population prepared for damned near anything the world could throw at it. People are always the best investment, IMO. But then I dream lots.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 03:17 AM

I don't know where you live, Dickey, but in Vancouver, you have to be two working professionals to own a home (and even then, the parents usually help with the downpayment). Not even the middle class can own a home, never mind the lower middle class or those who live in poverty.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 20 Jun 07 - 03:05 AM

Buying a home isn't always the best play. Better to pay cheap rent and take the difference between the rent and the mortgage payment + taxes and invest this amount in the stock market. Guaranteed the guy or gal will be glad they never bought the home to begin with....in 10 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 05:30 PM

What, is so "radical" by making the observation that poor folks don't buy homes... This is purdy much accepted as fact... I'm talking folks who fall under the "poverty line"... Who exactly finances them, Dickey???

No, as per usaul you can find a statistic that shows that actually a mnumber of oppr people own their own homes... This is differebnt than buying their own homes... I mean, just take Mississippi for example... I know of people and have played music with people who are a poor as poor can be who own theor own homes... I mean, and I'd be glad to provide a way for anyone to see a picture to prove it of me playin' music on the front porch that had no electricity... But Ms, Mary, bless her heart, owned her home...

Lots of poor people in the south own their homes and are dirt poor... Dirt friggin poor so, yeah, if I want to twist stats around I can use these folks to paint a much different picure than the one that ***you*** would like to paint...

In most urban areas there are also a small number of poor who own homes, like in the rural south, that have been passed down to them... Problem is that these folks are loosing their homes to taxes and energy costs... There have been several articles about this in the Post over the last few years about the D.C. hosung situation...

I suspect this phenomina is true in most urban areas...

So, if it your position that our poor population has all this access to home buying, Dickey, please enlighten us with your sources... I never had one client in my days a social worker who would have even dreamed of buying a home...

I think this a ludicris argument that cannot be backed up with real evidence...

So remember the game "I Challenge"??? Well, I challenge...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 04:26 PM

The folks in government don't have to live in poverty, so it means nothing to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,Spidey Bobe
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 01:53 PM

We saw examples of grinding poverty not 30 minutes drive from Orlando when we visited in 1991, and again around Lake Okechobe off the Florida Turnpike. We wondered how this could be in the "greatest nation in the world", then we reflected on the shits in the government!

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 12:29 PM

In the early 1970s, Baltimore initiated a cutting-edge homesteading program. The city turned over properties that were in municipal ownership to citizens committed to living in the dwelling for three years. The homesteader was given a lease for a nominal rent (usually $1 a year) and a twenty-year, federally financed rehab loan at 3% interest.

In principle, this modern-day initiative was not unlike the Homestead Act of 1862 wherein the government gave willing pioneers public land to develop the great open spaces of the West on the condition that the homesteader remain on the land and cultivate it for five years. Labor in exchange for a place to live and a source of livelihood was a well-accepted bartering system at the time, promoting both the settlement of the frontier and the concept of the self-sufficient entrepreneur.

Baltimore ’s program not only illustrated a fundamentally wise approach to the productive reuse of vacant and abandoned properties that ultimately feeds the regeneration of troubled neighborhoods, it also illustrated the City’s ability to be ahead of the curve in finding solutions to nettlesome urban problems. The burning question today is: Is Baltimore ready to be so innovative again?

On the ground, the answer appears to be yes...."

http://www.urbanitebaltimore.com/sub.cfm?issueID=35§ionID=4&articleID=369

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 11:38 AM

It all depends the location we are talking about. There is no way a poor person (say earning less than 15-20,000 per year), could ever afford a home in Beverly Hills, but they may be able to in the ghetto (if they could come up with the down payment).

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 19 Jun 07 - 11:26 AM

Bobert:

You keep stating these absolute "facts" of yours when you know damned well thet they are not true most of the time. If I show you instances of poor people buying their own homes then you will state some other absoulte, radical fact that is not absolute and ignore the first. It is your class warfare agenda instead of facts.

"Poor people have been locked outta home ownership"

That is incorrect on it's face unless zero poor people own a home. Many poor people own their own home.

Get a life. Drop the victim mentality you are trying to infect others with.

Poor people can and do work their way up the ladder of life and get their own homes. There is no Boss Hogg preventing poor people from owning their own home. If anything there are Boss Hoggs enticing them to buy their own home when they can't actually afford it yet and it would be better to wait. Or they charge a higher interest rate because of poor credit.

What should be shown to poor people is that they can achieve home ownership instead of being told they can't.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 09:23 PM

Poor people have been locked outta home ownership, Dickey...

As fir making money as a slum lord??? Not the best business plan but there are lots of misguided rich folks who just can't help themselves and get in and outta (real quick) that business...

No, my experiance is that it's the average Joe who can buy the rooming house and with a lotta hands on can make a few bucks and put up with the disappointyments that gfo along with the deal... I knew many of these folks when I was a socail worker... I had to... They needed me and I needed them... The most successfull where than hands on guys who owned two or three buildings, did most of their own maintenance, and were wise ehoung to understand that a lotta folks who they rented to were folks who would soon be back in state mental hospitals...

That, unfortaunately, is reality these days...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 09:03 PM

Another thing about assets that appreciate in value is that you don't
t have to pay taxes on them until you sell them. That is good becuase usually people do not have the income to pay taxes on the increased value of their assets.

However they are required to pay property taxes on the increased value and that causes some people problems. This hits the landlords too. Utilities and mantenence go up and increases their overall costs so they raise the rent. They go for market value. They have a lot of money invested and if they cannot get the same amount of return on investment from renting than they can for the same amount of money invested somewhere else, it is not worth the hassle.

It is like you could get $20 per hour as an employees so why would you work for $15 per hour just to be a good guy?

Look at the profit of the rental market compared to the drug companies. If you think renting is an easy job, just buy a house or something and rent it out.

The bad landlords are the slumlords that rent crappy housing with roaches etc. They rent cheap so the tenants can't complain because they cannot afford better.

This type of thing takes people's pride away and gives them low self esteem. These problems should be addressed. Although I have seen slums torn down and replaced by government housing which turned into crap in ten years time and had to be boarded up. And I have seen neighborhoods go the other way. Suddenly window flower boxes appear and the area takes an upturn. I think the difference is ownership rather than renting.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 03:36 PM

"Something to realize about money and wealth is that a lot of the wealth you see in people's bottom line is not money. It is the valuation of what they have. Say I buy a house for $250,000 and in 10 years it is worth $600,000. $350,000 was not printed up and handed to me. It was not transferred from poor people to me and made them that much poorer."

True. However, we see that type of inflation in stock markets with speculation as to where markets are going to go. I recognize that there is a 'speculative' dollar out there. That's part of the problem. You COULD if you so wished borrow against the total $600,000, whereas poorer people could only borrow against what they have as cash or kind. Their automobiles for example lose value each year, but real estate tends to rise. I live in a place where house prices have doubled in less than a year and a half. With that, places that rented for $500 have risen to over $1300 (per month). That is the result of greed on the part of landlords, because their amortization was being handled well with $500/month. That is part of the crunch the poor are caught in.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 01:17 PM

Sorry Kipp, I meant that the amount is less, there is a lesser impact on the rich persons bottom line than the middle and upper classes, as they tend to have less disposible income. Everyone who spends money is putting some into someone else's pocket.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Kipp
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 12:40 PM

AWG,
Even the poor passes some of there money on to others. Being poor does not nessicaraly mean you have no money just not enough to live on. Even if the poor gets food stamps that money is tranfered to someone else same whay with a housing subsidy it is passed on to the landloard. But as I have said being poor does not mean you have no money. I know some poor people that for them it is a nessicarry thing to have a Television and cable Also it is a thing to have a cell phone with a blue tooth attachment So even some of this money is going some else into some one elses pocket.
Kipp

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 11:31 AM

Poor people do little to make the rich richer. How can they, they have no money, (they are poor, remember). It's mainly the middle classes who do the spending (and the rich, of course), and they can afford to spend. The rich take from everyone EXCEPT the poor. BTW, most assets depreciate with time, not appreciate. It's mainly land that appreciates, almost everything else just wears out. But hey, that's another discussion all together. Just wanted to clarify.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 11:15 AM

Peace:

Something to realize about money and wealth is that a lot of the wealth you see in people's bottom line is not money. It is the valuation of what they have. Say I buy a house for $250,000 and in 10 years it is worth $600,000. $350,000 was not printed up and handed to me. It was not transferred from poor people to me and made them that much poorer.

Likewise with there are companies that grow from two guys in a garage to a multi-billion net worth company. The worth is based on sales, assets (which appreciate with time), the potential for earning money in the future and not entirely on money that passed from the hands of poor people to them.

There are however companies and people that deal directly with poor people, overcharging for goods and services when they have no alternatives. Unscrupulous car dealers, credit companies, Sub-prime lenders, landlords, auto repair shops, insurance companies and even lawyers. Then there are the criminals and drug dealers preying on them too.

Why assume that all wealth was taken from poor people? Why try to teach them this? teach them to know the difference. Teach them how net worth is accumulated.

When they are young and impressionable, what they see and hear are piss poor examples such as rappers with guns, dripping with bling, talking about drugs and abusing women. Cops running wild and stealing on the side. People killing each other is presented as real life. Drug dealers are made out to be sucessful and wealthy.

How can they possibly be sucessful when they are fed this garbage?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Kipp
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 10:34 AM

Excuse me not everyone work for big corpoations not all jobs are are non skilled. That is total bullshit to think that that is the only way I worked for a long time ase a picture framer I learned the skill got the job and still have the skill it w9ill never leave me I also learned computer skills had a small business bulding them and I worked in an art supply store there is not one piece of aret material used in the business of producing art that I almost don't know about. I worked in a store both making sandwhiches and baking bread and bagles if Tthose businesses had had unions I would never have gotten in had they been unionized some times we were only two emploies some times a few more but ar times have changes some of those skills have changed and some of those bussiness are no longer there. But I am not going to cry about it change is a constant thing I am not against unions but the are not always needed and unions cannot prevent change from happening no one can. But yet I do have these skills that I will be able to utilize at some point yes all of them, so to think that the union is the way out of poverty and is the only way out than that is putting your head in the sand. There are many ways for peole to pull themselves up from there boots straps
I also have a degree in comunications and might go back to school and major in folk lore. I am not crying that some one or company has done me wrong and that s0me one or group has to show me the way out of here it is in my power.
Kipp
Problem is that there is to much bull shit that is pssing as fact.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Peace
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 09:59 AM

Economics 101:

There is only so much money (define that how you will) to go around. Therefore, the more being kept by the few means less being handled by the many.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 09:12 AM

Amos, what you say is true. However you could count corporations that consider 'values' and those who also turn a high 'bottom line' on one hand. Those are the exceptions. However, like I said earlier, companies are getting smarter and finding ways to both keep employees happy AND increase the bottom line and keep their shareholders happy as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 09:02 AM

10 supermarket, union executives charged with pension mismanagement
June 29, 2006 CBC News

The trustees of one of Canada's biggest pension funds have been charged with mismanagement after Ontario's pension regulator alleged they invested more than $225 million of their workers' pension money in questionable Caribbean resorts.

The Financial Services Commission of Ontario said on Wednesday it has laid 15 charges against trustees of the Canadian Commercial Workers Industry Pension Plan, claiming they broke the conditions of the Ontario Pension Benefits Act with numerous major investments over a two-year period.

The people charged include senior executives of the major supermarket chains and senior officials of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, which represents 310,000 mainly supermarket employees.

The charges are regulatory, not criminal. Each carries a penalty of up to $100,000.

The FSCO said it has laid charges against eight current and two former trustees of the pension fund, claiming they failed to exercise due care when investing their workers' savings.

The trustees allegedly invested about $166 million in real estate companies and Caribbean developments run by a defrocked priest. They also invested more than 10 per cent of the plan's assets with a small number of associated persons or affiliated companies in violation of the pension rules, the FSCO claimed...."

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2006/06/29/pension-thurs.html

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 08:58 AM

"just you saving your own money with no corresponding increase"

Mick: What do you call matching contributions?

And what is wrong with you saving your own money? Is that stupid or something?

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 08:54 AM

Non-union=stupid. Typical bullying tactic.

Union values: What do I want you to do? I want you to kill the cocksucker! I want you to stuff his arms up his ass, that's what I fuckin' want!

Now that Kipp does not agree with Bobert, Non-union Bobert starts calling him stupid brush.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 08:05 AM

Yes, 14(b) uis a very cruel law... It allows many workers to let the others do the heavy lifting while enjoying the benefits... Your frined, Janie, I think is more the exception to the rule... The ones I knew in Richmond who opted out were just as content to ***believe*** that, if they got anything at all, it was because management cared for them... Ha...

Not in Richmond, Va... Maybe in areas without such screwed up views of the world, but not Richmond, Va. where you still see lots of adults smoking cigarettes...

And, just for thought... We always hear how Hollywood is so "liberal", right??? Well, when was the last real movie about the working class's struggles.... Seems it was "Norma Rhea" which came out a long, long, time ago...

If we are talking values here then Hollywood needs to get with the program and show us that so-called liberal side thety get accuse of having...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Janie
Date: 18 Jun 07 - 01:20 AM

Union Carbide and Dupont both had very large facilities along the Kanawha Valley, in and near Charleston, WV. Union Carbide was unionized. Dupont was not. I had a very close friend who worked at Dupont. He said they were better off with the union knocking at the door. To keep the union out, Dupont stayed one step ahead of worker benefits, safety, etc., than did Union Carbide. My friend was not at all anti-union. He understood very clearly that he and the other workers at Dupont were benefiting from the union presence at Carbide and WV strong pro-union bent.

My husband worked as an electrician at one of the Carbide plants where asbestos was in heavy use. He was the first to sound the alarm about asbestos. Without the protection of the union he would have been kicfked out the door promptly. Instead, the union not only protected his job, but got involved in the asbestos problems, which Carbide, predictably, was poopooing as senseless health concerns. It was the collectivebargaining power of the union that finally forced Carbide to aknowledge the very serious health risks to it's workers at that plant, and to take corrective actions to protect them.

Both Union CFarbide and Dupont, eventually moved all, or nearly all of their chemicfal operations out of Charleston and overseas, under pressure to be envirnmentally responsible. Remember Bhopal? That was an operation that was moved out of Charlestion to India.

I heard a fragment of a discussion on NPR several days ago about the US auto industry. I'm not sure what show I was listening to (maybe the Diane Rheimsshow?) or who the two speakers were as I was briefly in my car and just caught the middle of something. However, I think they were economists. One of them was attributing a portion of the financial problems of the us auto industry to the wages and benefits US companies are held to by union contracts. The other speaker disagreed. She compared the US industry to the Japanese industry, pointing out that Japanese auto workers are very well paid and have excellent benefits. She suggested the issue is simply that the Japanese desing and produce better vehicles, so the market for them is better. Shedidnot give the impression of being either for or against unions. She was simply makeingan objective observation.

Clearly, non-union employees in heavily unionized industries are much, much better off because of the labor unions.

What Amos is talking about is 'enlighted' self interest. Would God there was more of that floating around Corporations these days.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 10:41 PM

AWG:

You are mistaken. Smart shareholders look for more than transient spikes in profit, because they know that growth is ALSO a good in an investment, and growth occurs more readily in corporations that have a sense of ethics and atttention on their people's well-being. It maky take some time for the low-brow and the unaware to learn this the hard way -- I am sure there are a few Enron execs pondering this little lesson even now. There are exceptions where bloody-minded aggressiveness appears to make fast growth and high profit appear, but they breed human misery and contain within them the seeds of implosion. Shareholders who are not aware of these things are missing the boat.


All MHO, of course.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 09:26 PM

Values don't keep the shareholders happy, Bobert. You know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 05:10 PM

So why has the bottom line become more important than values, Dickey and AWG???...

No wonder the world is in such a mess... Our collective values are being trumped by corporate greed.... We keep hearing how the American laborer is so much more productive than his foriegn counterparts and that should mean that the American worker should be enjoying a piece of the wealth but, sadly, over the last 20 or so years that is ***not*** the case... No, the Amercian worker is produsing more and more and getting less and less... There was a time when folks could look forward to retirement... Oh sure, we hear that the abby boomers are doing just fine... That is an allusion... The baby boomers are quickly realizing they have been had and that retiremnt is not affordable... Health insurance alone has more than doubled in the last 7 years... Baby boomers, unless thety were lucky enough to be born into wealthy families opr extremely lucky to have worked for a union that BOss Hog's goon haven't yet busted, will be paying around $1000 a month just for health insurance for a realtively health couple... That is insane and makes retiremnt out of reach for many, if not most, baby boomers...

And, hey, the baby boomers have it made compared to their kids and grandkids... These two generations are absolutely screwed... There will be no chance for retirement for most of them unless, of course, they were smart enough to be born with rich parents, or lucky enough to hit the Power Ball lotto...

But the sad thing about this that the US has squandered a perfect opportunity to demonstarte what "human rights" is all about right here in our own back yard but with the way our corrupt governemnt has allowed the corportists (Hitler called them the industrialists when he buddied up to them) to run roughshod over everyone who aren't them the US has not demonstrated it care about "human rights"...

And we wonder hey other folks behave badly???

Hmmmmmm???

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 04:56 PM

.....'Guys like Dickie and AWG are union bashers because if you belong to a union, they can't bully you and they are too stupid to realize that happy, healthy workers increase productivity....' Are you saying employees can't be happy and healthy without a union ??    For your information, Dianavan, I have spent 2 decades working for an auto manufacturing facility (Japanese), and have seen the UAW try on several occasions to get in. Imagine how 5000 new members would increase their bottom line. However, they have failed each and every time, not due to intimidation (the company does nothing of the sort), but due to the fact that the employees know how well we are treated (pay + benefits), and we don't need a union. The common response employees give is 'why pay the outrageous dues, they can't get us any more than we have now'. The only reason people might like to see the union get in is they like the idea that it is much more difficult, if not impossible, to get fired, and they can 'stand around doing nothing' without recourse. Only the lazy workers like the idea of a union getting in. When it comes to productivity, we would eat GM's lunch. When GM is on strike, we're working away every day. Take that Mick !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 04:32 PM

And their responses amount to a version of "Oh yeah?????".

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 04:25 PM

Its obvious that AWG does not think that workers should be allowed to get sick and that they should not be entitled to holidays.

Union bashers are just jealous.

All workers should have the same rights. Thats why everyone should become unionized. Workers that are not unionized do not enjoy the benefits (pensions, medical, dental, sick days, holidays, overtime wages, seniority, etc.) that union members enjoy. Why don't they unionize? Intimidation! Thats the best thing about unions. They won't let your boss intimidate you or treat you unfairly.

Guys like Dickie and AWG are union bashers because if you belong to a union, they can't bully you and they are too stupid to realize that happy, healthy workers increase productivity.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: AWG
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 03:48 PM

Hey Mick, where do you come up with these so-called 'facts' ?? GM workers the most productive in the world....? What a laffer that is !! You can't possibly be serious. I like Dickie's comment about the magazines, I hear at GM they can prepare meals on-line, smoke in the cars while doing 'quality' checks,(that is a fact), they get holidays and sick days coming out of their ying-yangs, I bet nobody ever got fired from a GM because they called in sick, no matter how many times it happened. The amount of resourses that GM wastes every year could feed a small nation, and you call them 'productive' ?? Yeah, okay.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 02:20 PM

Actually, Dickey, I am not villifying you. Disagreement is not the same as vilification.

Of course Union companies are less profitable than non union companies. Non union companies, in the interest of increased profitability, make their employees pay if they want decent health care (in the States) as opposed to a bare bones, cover nothing but major illness, type plans. Non union companies don't provide pension plans, instead opting for 401K's which are really just savings plans for the employees. They try and make you think that these are your pension, while in reality they are just you saving your own money with no corresponding increase. In short, it is just cost shifting to you. Non union companies also pay less on the paycheck. Another reason Union companies are less profitable is because of the safety and work rules which are implemented by the collective bargaining process which makes for safer workplaces. I know you think that safety in the workplace and ergonomic standards should take second place to profits, but pardon me for disagreeing.

The point here, Dickey, as Amos initially pointed out, is that profitability is but one measure of success. If you want to see what profitability over safety does, visit the plants across the borders in Mexico. You know, the ones with no environmental controls, the ones where they dump chemicals in the groundwater to the point that the rate of children being born with only part of a brain is much higher.

The fact of the matter is that being less profitable does not mean that the company isn't profitable. But in this case what it does mean is that increased profitability comes straight out of the pockets of the workers and their families; it means it comes at the expense of more workers being injured; it comes at the expense of workers who can't afford to take their kids to the Doctor because the deductibles are so high on their plans, if they have a plan at all.

There was a time when an employer would keep a plant open because they felt a sense of obligation to the workers. They would do this as long as they didn't lose money. Nowadays these corporate bastards will shut a plant down, not because it isn't profitable, but because it isn't profitable enough.

So, Dickey, I am not vilifying you. I don't even know you. But your words do convict you. And they show you as unable or unwilling to look beyond the world of cliche'd responses and demogogic example. These are the self same cliches that management has been planting out their for years.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Amos
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 12:25 PM

Part of the issue, DIckey, is that you believe profitability to be the sole criterion for an organization's effectiveness. This is the kind of blindered analysis that makes for corporate greed, white-collar crime, and bad television. In supporting this "one good" idea of the purpose of companies, you are subscribing to these values. The most profitable comapnies I know personally share a different value: to make a group of people who are both profitable and happy, and who do something of value for the world.

Every time GM has failed it is because they went cross-eyed on this balance of intentions.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 11:59 AM

You missed one Mick:

"...unionized firms have profits that are 10 percent to 20 percent lower than the profits of non-union firms. Further, the evidence from Britain also suggests that closed-shop unions have a stronger negative impact on profitability...."

http://oldfraser.lexi.net/media/media_releases/1997/19970623.html

You can keep trying to personally villainize me all you want but it won't change the facts.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 11:12 AM

See Dickey, right there you revealed, yet again, what is wrong with your debate style. Your comment about the most productive auto workers in the world (GM workers) shows that you don't have a real fact in your head. All you can do is spout cliche'd comments.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Dickey
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 11:03 AM

Imagine that. A person living in a shelter AND a person accused of being a shill for the rich are against unions. A conspiracy is unfolding.

What is the productivity of those GM workers reading magazines because of some loophole in their contract?

I hope Bobert runs a closed union shop.

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Bobert
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 10:34 AM

Well, I can't sy that Kipp has been over his head since the beginning of this discussion but Dickey sho nuff has piled up quite a pile of evidence that he is...

Perhaps he'd like to explain what he doesn't understand about the "root causes" of poverty that were laid out early in the discussion...

But, no... His little left brain (or is is right brain) wants some kinda Holy Grail, E=MC2 type root cause as if there is but just one single root cause... This is way beyond *remedial* here... Anyopne this far into thias discussion who hasn't figured out this part of poverty isn't going to figure it out...

That's what Janie pointed out a few posts ago, for which I seconded...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 09:03 AM

What a marvelous piece of horsehit information from Kipp/Dickey. Perhaps you could take a bit of time to do a little research before you throw out opinion that isn't based in fact. What has killed Detroit is not it's overpaid, lazy workforce. Every single piece of data available shows the US autoworker as the most productive in the world. And every bit of data available shows that the Big Three are failing because of their bloated middle and upper management levels. The problem with those companies lies square in the middle of bad management practices.

And they bitch about the "legacy costs" of the fairly negotiated benefits. The real reason that they are struggling to keep up, again, lies in greed and mismanagement. Anyone remember the pension raid era of the late 80's and early 90's? Of course not, because no one wants to talk of this. This was a time when unions fought, and lost the fight in the right wing Reagan courts, to not allow corporations to raid the excess earnings in the pension plans. We said then that these funds would be needed to maintain benefits in slow times. But the courts allowed them to strip out the earnings of these negotiated benefits. I still don't understand that one. My money earns better than projected and you get to take the earnings. The offshoot of that some 15 years later is you have funds that are underfunded (another gift of the Reagan administration, being allowed to underfund pensions)and folks talking about cutting the fairly bargained benefits that workers planned on for retirement.

Kipp/Dickey ...... just admit that you are over your head in this discussion.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Poverty in the USA
From: Big Mick
Date: 17 Jun 07 - 08:52 AM

Then maybe I should have said "anti union". As a concept, I cannot imagine why you would want unions to disappear. Unions are nothing more than bargaining groups for commodities. In this case the commodity is their labor. This is where folks like you have their arguments fall apart. You are generally all for any step that a business takes to protect itself and grow. But when workers do precisely the same thing, you have a problem. They are simply protecting the source of their profit. They are attempting to improve their bottom line through the use of collectively bargained wages and benefits, for which they sell their labor.

As to the decline, perhaps you are correct, but don't expect us to sit around and wait for that. We are developing and implementing new strategies daily. We are increasing our presence in labor groups around the world. We are focusing more on organizing.

As to why, it is simple. The incidents of work place injury is rising. The incidents of corporations taking advantage of poor workers is rising. And the capital is gathering in fewer and fewer hands as the gap between the richest and poorest widens. Workers increasingly are finding it harder and harder to survive on one job, or one wage earner.

So, if you don't mind, we will hang out a bit longer and see if we can't lend a little assistance.

Oh ........ yeah. Happy Fathers Day

Mick